A quick guide to why stand-alone checkpatch patches suck...

[nick]

On 14-09-17 08:05 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> 
> 
> On September 17, 2014 7:53:24 AM EDT, nick <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14-09-17 07:51 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:08 PM, nick <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14-09-17 07:20 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>   anyway, it's time for coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> rday
>>>>>
>>>> Rday and others,
>>>> That's not what I wanted I was trying to improve my rep after
>> getting banned from vger.org and now it seems
>>>> I can't even get a patch right. In addition I was trying to do check
>> patch because  it was easier for me
>>>> due to not understanding some parts of the code.
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>
>>> try to understand the code first. if you do not understand the code
>>> how do you know that your patch will not break any part of the logic
>> .
>>> ok , by adding blank lines you will not break the logic.
>>> but yesterday in your other patch you removed an error message . may
>> i
>>> ask why did you think that error message is not required ?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> sudip
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>> I thought that the return statement of NULL to a caller was enough.
>> Nick 
> 
> Uh...
> 
> I don't know that chunk of code, but error messages that go to the kernel log exist for a specific reason.  Taking them out requires a specific reason.
> 
> Ie. This would make a good commit message "At this point the condition is well understood and the code that handles it is well tested and has been stable for 3 years, thus removing the error message."
> 
> Greg
> 
Thanks Greg Again,
This is what I meant with my patch, why have a unneeded error message if the code is already tested and only uses
the return value in that function.
Cheers Nick