>> Do you try this update suggestion out without integrating the corresponding previous >> update suggestion "Delete unnecessary checks before two function calls" >> where I proposed to remove extra checks before a few calls of the function "kobject_put" >> (which seems to matter for the patch hunk in the shown error message)? >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/5/276 >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1013635.html > > I guess so, I don't remember, I don't see any patches from you earlier > in my "todo" mbox. I am still waiting for further constructive feedback on a bunch of my update suggestions which are derived from static source code analysis. It can be the usual challenge to get a bit more attention for them. Other software improvements will result in bigger effects than the source code fine-tuning I propose, won't it? I would like to acknowledge that changes like the following from this patch series can still be applied together for the software "Linux next-20151126". * 0001-staging-lustre-Delete-unnecessary-checks-before-two.patch * 0003-staging-lustre-Less-function-calls-in-class_register.patch >> Would you like to reject the first update step from this patch series >> so that I need to adapt my approach to your software design decision? > > I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no recolection of > previous patches or conversations about your patches. * Dan Carpenter expressed his software design concerns around hidden sanity checks a few times. How do you think about to give the proposed changes another chance? * Positive feedback is occasionally increasing by specific subsystem supporters and maintainers. How will our collaboration evolve further? Do you want that I resend any mails/patches from my "waiting queue"? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
