On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:52:47AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 4/17/24 09:19, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:46:44PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > > When bringing down the TX rings we flush the rings but forget to > > > > > > reclaimed the flushed packets. This lead to a memory leak since we > > > > > > do not free the dma mapped buffers. … > > > > > > > > > > I find this change description improvable. > > > > > > > > > > * How do you think about to avoid typos? > > > > > > > > > > * Would another imperative wording be more desirable? > > > > > > > > The change description makes sense to me. Can you be a bit more specific as to what isn't clear here? > > > > > > Spelling suggestions: > > > + … forget to reclaim … > > > + … This leads to … > > > > Markus, let's cut to the chase. > > > > What portion of your responses of this thread were produced > > by an LLM or similar technology? > > > > The suggestions in your second email are correct. > > But, ironically, your first response appears to be grammatically incorrect. > > > > Specifically: > > > > * What does "improvable" mean in this context? > > I read it as "improbable", but this patch came out of an actual bug report > we had internally and code inspection revealed the leaks being plugged by > this patch. > > > * "How do you think about to avoid typos?" > > is, in my opinion, grammatically incorrect. > > And, FWIW, I see no typos. > > There was one, "This lead to a memory leak" -> "This leads to a memory leak" > > > * "Would another imperative wording be more desirable?" > > is, in my opinion, also grammatically incorrect. > > > > And yet your comment is ostensibly about grammar. > > I'm sorry, but this strikes me as absurd. > > Yeah, I share that too, if you are to nitpick on every single word someone > wrote in a commit message, your responses better be squeaky clean such that > Shakespeare himself would be proud of you. > > There is a track record of what people might consider bike shedding, others > might consider useless, and others might find uber pedantic comments from > Markus done under his other email address: elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. > > Me personally, I read his comments and apply my own judgement as to whether > they justify spinning a new patch just to address the feedback given. He has > not landed on my ignore filter, but of course that can change at a moments > notice. Thanks Florian, On reflection, my previous email was inappropriate. I do have reservations about the review provided by Markus, but should not reacted as I did. I apologise to every for that.
