> While I agree that the old code in arch/s390/kernel/debug.c does not abide to > the current coding style standards, Thanks for this kind of acknowledgement. Is such an information worth for further development considerations? > I doubt there is much value in these patches. I assume that your doubts could be adjusted, couldn't they? Are there any other concerns involved in the background? > To be honest I got annoyed after the third patch Which of the proposed changes did trigger such a reaction? I find this response also a bit surprising because of the aspect that I offered you some results from my work as a free software developer. > and stopped reading after the forth. I imagine that you could have aborted the review of my update suggestions a bit too early for your debug software module. I agree that the value is varying for the presented 17 update steps. But I hope that their value is potentially bigger overall than you categorise them at first glance. Now I would like to try to get a bit of your software development attention once more for two of them at least. I hope that it can be easier to clarify their value. * Do the implementations of the functions "debug_areas_alloc" and "debug_get_user_string" need another look together with a more detailed source code review? * How do you think about to use functions like "kmalloc_array" and "memdup_user" there instead? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
