On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:47:16 +0800, Yi Yang wrote: > + return ((ret != 0) ? false : true);
I'm not going to review this version but this caught my eye - I pointed out this silly construct in my review of v9. I can understand that working late in the night and rewriting the code back and forth, one could end up with such construct and overlook it at the final self-review before submission. Happens to everyone. But leaving this after a review pointed it out means you're not paying enough attention to your work. Even the fact that you sent v10 so shortly after v9 means you did not spend the needed time on reflecting on the review and that you did not properly test the new version. And I told you exactly this before. Honestly, I'm starting to be tired with reviewing your patch again and again and pointing out silly mistakes like this one and repeating basic things to you again and again. Jiri
