>> Additional improvement possibilities can be taken into account >> after corresponding software development discussions, can't they? > > Sure, but that is in contrary to all you replies. Where do you see a contradiction in this case? > I guess you are familiar with Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst chapter 8. I hope so in principle. > No matter that patch was generated or suggested by a tool, you sent > it and normal review procedure follows. This is generally fine. > And here you ignored _all_ suggestions I did not integrate a few of them for my commit message so far because it seems that there are open issues for further clarification. Do you want that I send a second approach for this software module before your own evolving update suggestion? > and concentrate solely on improving Coccinelle scripts. I hope not. > On kernel related lists suggestions to patch itself are discussed. This is usual. > Whenever you take them into account while developing Coccinelle > is up to you (on the Cocci list). This is also happening, isn't it? 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
