SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> WARNING: Prefer devm_kcalloc over devm_kzalloc with multiply >> For example. Also I just noticed some previous comment by Krzysztof that >> pointed that out already. >> >> My suggestion: One sentence describing that the current situation is. > > Why do you find the sentence for the multiplication information inappropriate > (or incomplete) at the moment? I already explained that. It's a 1:1 translation of a german sentence into English. A native speaker does not write or speak like that. If in doubt, don't use long sentences (with nesting, etc.) at all, and break things down into logical blocks.
>> Another sentence explaining why this is bad/undesirable. > > Which details do you miss here? Pretty much everything. >> In this case, the output of the checkpatch script would come in handy. > > Its implementation of the check “ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY” considers only an other > search pattern so far. > > * Do you find it worthwhile to add a prefix like “devm_” to the used > regular expression? > > * Would like to improve any related scripts for the semantic patch language > (Coccinelle software) a bit more? I don't understand why you're asking this. I'm talking about the _output_ of checkpatch, not about the script itself. But undoubtedly your patch is motivated by the output of said tool. Hence you should mention that. - Tobias >> With this, you avoid cramming every information into one long and >> complicated sentence. > > Thanks for your feedback about other wording preferences. > > Regards, > Markus >
