On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:25:57AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 01:01:24AM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
putting an obvious disclaimer/question section after a three-dash
line
is a perfectly sufficient way to mark such a patch.
Convention is it goes in the subject line, so patch automation such as
patchwork can identify the patches that aren't to be applied.
that's a good point, but things aren't quite as black-and-white. while i
didn't _expect_ the patch to be correct, it seemed possible.
The driver you are modifying was introduced
in v2.6.13-rc1 *before* this flag was available, and thus from a time
when fifo_size was _only_ _ever_ specifyable in bytes.
well, that's nice to know, but totally irrelevant. you're clearly more
interested in proving that you didn't do anything wrong more than a
decade ago, rather than judging whether there is room for improvement
*now*. there is no shame in acknowledging that things aren't perfect,
and then just moving on, because it isn't important enough.
You clearly don't believe in doing any research.
or maybe i just didn't want to spend hours on investigating something
mildly suspicious i coincidentally stumbled upon when someone in the
know could make a call in seconds.
if you truly believe that this is an unacceptable approach, then you
apparently think that your time is worth hundreds of times more than
mine. you should reflect upon that attitude.
You just create broken patches and send them in a form where they could
well be picked up and merged into mainline causing breakage.
you seem to have a remarkably low opinion of the people and processes
involved in safeguarding that this doesn't happen. which is kinda funny,
because it includes yourself.
