[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/5] fdt: boot_get_fdt: remove redundant zeroing out

[Simon Glass]

Hi Eugeniu,

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 03:18, Eugeniu Rosca <erosca at de.adit-jv.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:33:06PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Eugeniu,
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 03:46, Eugeniu Rosca <erosca at de.adit-jv.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paranoid programming [1] lies at the foundation of proper software
> > > development, but the repetitive zeroing-out of output arguments in the
> > > context of the same function rather clutters the code and inhibits
> > > further refactoring/optimization than is doing any good.
> > >
> > > In boot_get_fdt(), we already perform zero/NULL-initialization of
> > > *of_flat_tree and *of_size at the beginning of the function, so doing
> > > the same at function error-out is redundant/superfluous.
> > >
> > > Moreover, keeping the code unchanged might encourage the developers to
> > > update *of_flat_tree and *of_size during some interim computations,
> > > which is against the current design of boot_get_fdt(). Currently,
> > > writing useful data into these arguments happens just before
> > > successfully returning from boot_get_fdt() and it should better stay so.
> > >
> > > [1] https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1106
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca at de.adit-jv.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > >  - s/zeroint-out/zeroing-out/ in commit description
> > >  - Link v1: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1071586/
> > > ---
> > >  common/image-fdt.c | 2 --
> > >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >
> > But please update the comment to for the function:
> >
> > *     of_flat_tree and of_size are set to 0 if no fdt exists
>
> Thank you very much for the review. Since the patch is part of a series
> and there are no other comments except this one, should I decouple it
> and send as v3 standalone or there is still some chance for getting
> feedback for the other patches (and sending an update for the whole
> series)?

I don't think there are any hard conventions. You can certainly resend
v3 of just that one patch. But I don't think anyone would mind if you
sent v3 of the whole series.

Regards,
Simon