Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d4a96597-6704-3030-b936-6282f0994f09@web.de> <CAJRQjofnnhzOp4yis=sL85ESDvNApXHL3dpv6T1NJL-Wh0OOfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOSf1CGLZ5H1cUsv6atZ7hNpQ+PDyyAjp6dzJjXMwC5XoUOVQQ@mail.gmail.com> <d8334f5d-403f-941f-abcc-2714d297082b@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <d8334f5d-403f-941f-abcc-2714d297082b@web.de>
From:   Qiujun Huang <hqjagain@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:40:25 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJRQjocCfuT4k3fvMvzQ4Yf9RUaybggNGqwYdR9He+XEctcj6g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/powernv: add NULL check after kzalloc in opal_add_one_export
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@gmail.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:02 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote=
:
>
> >>>> Here needs a NULL check.
> >> quite obvious?
>
> I suggest to consider another fine-tuning for the wording also around
> such =E2=80=9Cobvious=E2=80=9D programming items.
>
>
> >>> I find this change description questionable
> >>> (despite of a reasonable patch subject).
>
> I got further development concerns.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/D=
ocumentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=3Da10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb83=
7467893b4bef01#n129
>
> * Were changes mixed for different issues according to the diff code?
>
> * I find it safer here to split specific changes into separate update ste=
ps
>   for a small patch series.
>
> * Will the addition of the desired null pointer check qualify for
>   the specification of the tag =E2=80=9CFixes=E2=80=9D?
>
>
> >>> Will a patch change log be helpful here?
> >> I realized I should write some change log, and the change log was mean=
ingless.
>
> Will any more adjustments happen for the discussed update suggestion
> after the third patch version?
>
>
> > The changelog is fine IMO. The point of a changelog is to tell a
> > reader doing git archeology why a change happened and this is
> > sufficent for that.
>
> We might stumble on a different understanding for the affected =E2=80=9Cc=
hange logs=E2=80=9D.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/D=
ocumentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=3Da10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb83=
7467893b4bef01#n751
>
> Would you like to follow the patch evolution a bit easier?
>
> Regards,
> Markus

Thanks for the reply.
I should study the documentation first.
BTW, happy new week