On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
> John Kacur <jka...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Although your fix appears to be correct, I wonder if it would be better
> > > > to
> > > > create a second error label, such as out_destroy_tool: as described in
> > > > section 7 of the coding-style.rst
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's no reason for that. It's the only error path. That is, nothing
> > > would jump to the original out_err:
> > >
> > > And for a single error, an if statement is good enough.
> > >
> > > -- Steve
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ah, right of course.
> > Okay in that case, Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jka...@redhat.com>
> > (applied the patch, built and ran)
>
> Note, "Signed-off-by" is for the author of a patch or someone pushing it
> through their tree. I believe you want either "Acked-by" or "Reviewed-by",
> and since you ran it you could also add "Tested-by".
>
> -- Steve
Thanks Steve,
Reviewed-by: John Kacur <jka...@redhat.com>
Tested-by: John Kacur <jka...@redhat.com>
