On Mon, 11 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > If you can't determine when the bug was introduced, > > I might be able to determine also this information. > This is tantamount to an admission of duplicity. > > > how can you criticise a patch for the lack of a Fixes tag? > > I dared to point two details out for the discussed patch. > You deliberately chose those two details. You appear to be oblivious to your own motives. > > >> To which commit would you like to refer to for the proposed > >> adjustment of the function “mac_sonic_platform_probe”? > > > > That was my question to you. We seem to be talking past each other. > > We come along different views for this patch review. Who is going to add > a possible reference for this issue? > Other opinions are not relevant: I was trying to communicate with you. > > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=e99332e7b4cda6e60f5b5916cf9943a79dbef902#n460 > > > > > My preference is unimportant here. > > It is also relevant here because you added the tag “Reviewed-by”. > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/comment/1433193/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/8/1827 > You have quoted my words out-of-context and twisted their meaning to suit your purposes. > > > I presume that you mean to assert that Christophe's patch breaches the > > style guide. > > I propose to take such a possibility into account. > This "possibility" was among the reasons why the patch was posted to a mailing list by its author. That possibility is a given. If you claim this possibility as your motivation, you are being foolish or dishonest. > > > However, 'sonic_probe1' is the name of a function. > > The discussed source file does not contain such an identifier. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc5/source/drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi/macsonic.c#L486 > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi/macsonic.c?id=2ef96a5bb12be62ef75b5828c0aab838ebb29cb8#n486 > That's what I told you in my previous email. You're welcome. > > > This is not some sequence of GW-BASIC labels referred to in the style > > guide. > > I recommend to read the current section “7) Centralized exiting of > functions” once more. > Again, you are proposing a bike shed of a different color. > > >> Can programming preferences evolve into the direction of “say what > >> the goto does”? > > > > I could agree that macsonic.c has no function resembling "probe1", and > > that portion of the patch could be improved. > > I find this feedback interesting. > > > > Was that the opinion you were trying to express by way of rhetorical > > questions? I can't tell. > > Some known factors triggered my suggestion to consider the use of the > label “free_dma”. > If you cannot express or convey your "known factors" then they aren't useful. > > > Is it possible for a reviewer to effectively criticise C by use of > > English, when his C ability surpasses his English ability? > > We come along possibly usual communication challenges. > That looks like a machine translation. I can't make sense of it, sorry. > Regards, > Markus > Markus, if you were to write a patch to improve upon coding-style.rst, who should review it? If you are unable to write or review such a patch, how can you hope to adjudicate compliance?
