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