Removing the NT_STATUS_HAVE_NO_MEMORY_AND_FREE macro
jra at samba.org
Tue Feb 18 15:18:22 MST 2014
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 17:42 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:09:12AM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > >
> > > ... our practice for coding rules is that we try to make
> > > *new* code adhere to them. Existing code can be adapted
> > > as it is touched. We do not usually walk over the existing
> > > code and do changes just to make it adhere to the guidelines.
> > > Doing this has several downsides:
> > >
> > > - It blurs code ownership.
> > > - It makes backports harder.
> > > - It is seductive to do tons of scripted changes
> > > instead of concentrating on real work.
> > >
> > > So as a consequence, while I do in principle agree
> > > with the result of the patches, I am sceptical
> > > towards this change.
> > If this were a larger, more invasive change set
> > I would agree. But having looked over this change:
> > a). it isn't really invasive (and so won't blur
> > ownership).
> > b). IMHO the patchset is in the same vein as changes that
> > Volker, myself and others do every day to tidy
> > up the code and make it more maintainable.
> > Some people just find it easier to do things by scripts
> > rather than by hand :-).
> > Having said that, as it *is* merely a code cleanup I
> > can also live without it of course if people
> > disagree.
> I totally agree. I think we have gone over things enough, and it would
> be great if we could get the changes pushed.
> Did I see your review on the second set of patches?
+1 - add my 'Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>'
More information about the samba-technical