On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 19:48 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. > > 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. The problem here in a time line or what comes first. Definitely, you are trying to fix the code which _is_ upstream vs. the code which _might be_ upstream (exception is drivers/staging). Why didn't you listen to what people are telling you? Why are you spending too much time on little sense crap instead of doing real fixes? -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- 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
