On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:02 AM Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is any of you familiar with Golang? Don't worry about that! I'd expect seasoned C programmers to be able to read Go (or near languages) -- at least to have a general idea of what an algorithm does. It is not APL, after all :-) > > @Maintainers Would any of you actually review like this? If yes, is the > pseudo-code not enough? Well, Kees already mentioned he would like to see it :-) As he said, it is usually the way for bulk patches to present the algorithm/semantic patch/etc. that was used. It is also useful to have it around so that it can be reused/reapplied later on, too. > I didn't log that link-by-link. Maybe because I also didn't follow plain > HTTP redirects while opening HTTPS links. Maybe it even matched, but was > added after I made the changes. It would be nice to have a list of links which cannot be converted, since nowadays they are likely to be the exception rather than the rule. > * Linus *didn't even respond* (at least I didn't receive anything) to my > catch-them-all patch at all, not even like please not as .gz attachment > or please split by subsystem Please take into account that LKML volume is huge and Linus (like everybody else) only reads a small subset. Further, as a general rule, Linus shouldn't be picking individual patches to begin with because that skips the review tree. Cheers, Miguel
