On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:03:13 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > People are free to spend their time on what they like. Even if no commit of this series lands in mainline it has been useful to clarify what is preferred style and what is useful fix. Thanks Michal -- 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
