On 06/25/2013 07:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote: >>>>> > >> > Also can let code simpler and easier for readers: if checking >>>>> > >> > parameter >>>>> > >> > 'value', it will easily lead readers to think about why not return >>>>> > >> > -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT, when checking parameter failed. >>> > > So you are seriously claiming, that the check for !value makes people >>> > > think that the return value should be -EINVAL? >>> > > >>> > > That's hillarious. >>> > > >> > That seems not a quite polite word, is it ? ;-) > My apologies for being so impolite. Let me rephrase it. Here is a > "sample" changelog for your patch: >
It doesn't matter, I really don't (shouldn't) care about it. Next time, I should try to send patch carefully, so may save the maintainers' timer resource. And excuse me for my poor English and either not familiar with kernel, I am trying to improve them, and keep improving them. > Subject: itimers: Remove bogus NULL pointer check in sys_getitimer() > > People might be tricked into assuming that the return value for a > failed NULL pointer check should be -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT. > > Remove the misleading NULL pointer check to fix this nuisance. > > Aside of that this patch fixes the problem of NOMMU kernels, where > a NULL pointer dereference is a valid operation. This allows to > boot NOMMU kernels without working around the shortcomings of the > getitimer() system call, which have been ignored since this NULL > pointer check was introduced in Linux 0.96a. > Really very good comments, at least for me now, I really can not write a comment like that. > > Please resubmit. I will send patch v4 (patch v3 has sent, and should be obsoleted) Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
