On September 17, 2014 7:53:24 AM EDT, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14-09-17 07:51 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:08 PM, nick <xerofoify@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@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 -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.