On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:48:06PM +0200, 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. > > > > 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 I've given clear enough instructions what to do with the commits. This is the point where I stop caring about this mail thread. Thank you. /Jarkko -- 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
