On 12/12/16 3:11 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> It is really needed to clarify the corresponding software development >>> history any further? >> >> It is relevant because you are submitting a patch and your changelog >> implies that it makes the code follow some code structure rule that >> needs to be applied to the kernel. > > I am proposing a change which was described also around various other > functions in some software already. What is this supposed to mean? >> As the above is a recurring pattern in kernel code, it is legitimate >> to ask if such a rule exist, and has been enforced before, or you are >> making it up. > > I got the impression that special software development habits can also > evolve over time. > >> As a proposer of a new pattern, what is the evidence you can bring to >> the discussion that supports that your solution is better? > > I am trying to increase the software development attention on error > detection and corresponding exception handling at various places. Are you doing this submitting random patches to the kernel sources? >> What is the metric you are using to define "better"? > > Do response times for system failures matter here? No. And you are again answering a question with a question. Cheers, Daniele -- 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
