>> I find that it is a preparation. - If this addition could not be accepted, >> the following update step would also be discussed under an other perspective, >> wouldn't it? > > It's purposeless, creates unnecessary patches to review > and generally wastes other people's time. I have got an other opinion about this. > Please don't purposefully waste other people's time. I do not want to "waste" your time. - But I can imagine that I stress your software development attention to some degree as I am publishing a significant number of update suggestions according to a bit of static source code analysis. > It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied. The acceptance varies as usual. I see also another option. * Can the first three update steps from this small patch series be integrated while the fourth needs further adjustments (where I went a bit too far)? * Do you prefer to squash the last two update steps together? 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
