Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/powernv: add NULL check after kzalloc in opal_add_one_export
From: Qiujun Huang
Date: Mon Apr 06 2020 - 06:40:41 EST
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:02 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>>> Here needs a NULL check.
> >> quite obvious?
>
> I suggest to consider another fine-tuning for the wording also around
> such âobviousâ programming items.
>
>
> >>> I find this change description questionable
> >>> (despite of a reasonable patch subject).
>
> I got further development concerns.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=a10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb837467893b4bef01#n129
>
> * Were changes mixed for different issues according to the diff code?
>
> * I find it safer here to split specific changes into separate update steps
> for a small patch series.
>
> * Will the addition of the desired null pointer check qualify for
> the specification of the tag âFixesâ?
>
>
> >>> Will a patch change log be helpful here?
> >> I realized I should write some change log, and the change log was meaningless.
>
> Will any more adjustments happen for the discussed update suggestion
> after the third patch version?
>
>
> > The changelog is fine IMO. The point of a changelog is to tell a
> > reader doing git archeology why a change happened and this is
> > sufficent for that.
>
> We might stumble on a different understanding for the affected âchange logsâ.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=a10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb837467893b4bef01#n751
>
> Would you like to follow the patch evolution a bit easier?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Thanks for the reply.
I should study the documentation first.
BTW, happy new week