On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:05:27 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:00:18 +0100 > > Two update suggestions were taken into account > from static source code analysis. Markus, I'd apply this kind of patches only when they are really tested on the hardware, or they were converted systematically by a script like spatch. The reason is that you might break something (and you already broke things in the past). The merit by such a patch is negligible in comparison of the risk of breakage. These codes aren't too bad without fixing, after all; everyone can read it pretty well as is. If these patches were tested on a real hardware, or at least on VM, so that you can show that they don't break anything, I'll happily apply them for the next (4.16) kernel. In that case, please show that in the changelog explicitly. Or, if you're really working on other real changes (no cosmetic coding style fixes nor the code shuffling, but fixing a real bug) *and* such a cleanup is mandatory as preliminary, it can be accepted, too. thanks, Takashi -- 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
