On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 02:45:10PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
…, reorder media_request_alloc() such that …
Wording adjustments: …, reorder statements in the implementation of the function “media_request_alloc” so that …
… the last step thus
… the last step. Thus media_request_close() …
Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
…
+++ b/drivers/media/mc/mc-request.c @@ -296,9 +296,18 @@ int media_request_alloc(struct media_device *mdev, int *alloc_fd) if (WARN_ON(!mdev->ops->req_alloc ^ !mdev->ops->req_free)) return -ENOMEM;
- if (mdev->ops->req_alloc)
req = mdev->ops->req_alloc(mdev);- else
req = kzalloc(sizeof(*req), GFP_KERNEL);How do you think about to use a conditional operator?
- req = (mdev->ops->req_alloc ? mdev->ops->req_alloc(mdev) : kzalloc(sizeof(*req), GFP_KERNEL));
Regards, Markus
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot