> For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in tpm_…()”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such a kind of attribution. > That's all. I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > 4/4: this a good commit message. Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. I am curious on how this detail will evolve. 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
