Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67888-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:18:02 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Rand Deeb <rand.sec96@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, deeb.rand@confident.ru,
 lvc-project@linuxtesting.org, voskresenski.stanislav@confident.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dl2k: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference in
 receive_packet()
Message-ID: <20240215161802.73c0ece3@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN8dotmVcmpqxO0SyPvit20Ny-tU3OMHr0LLoXRQ3bpPTS5WqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240213200900.41722-1-rand.sec96@gmail.com>
	<20240214170203.5bf20e2d@kernel.org>
	<CAN8dotmVcmpqxO0SyPvit20Ny-tU3OMHr0LLoXRQ3bpPTS5WqA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 02:32:54 +0300 Rand Deeb wrote:
> Regarding your comment on using `(!skb)` instead of `(skb == NULL)`, I
> understand that `(!skb)` is more common and is also recommended by `
> checkpatch.pl`. However, I chose to keep the original code style and logic
> to maintain consistency and avoid confusion, especially for other
> developers who might be familiar with the existing format. The same
> applies to the `printk` statement. In the same function, there is an exact
> block of code used; should I fix it too?

Don't worry about surrounding code if it's written in a clearly
outdated style.

If the style is different intentionally, that's different, but
for old code using more modern style helps bring the code base
forward little by little.