On Wed Oct 18 17, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
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.
Shouldn't this information source for the explanation be the
submitter? I'd hope they understand what it is they are submitting.
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
