On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 08:04:03PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> So I hope that your solution approach will be also fine. > >> Will it supersede my proposal? > > > > Who knows, perhaps it would be the best if you could judge yourself... > > I am also curious on how other contributors will respond to > your following update suggestion. > > > > 8<-------- > > > > Subject: [PATCH] mfd/omap-usb-tll: Allocate driver data at once > > Would it have been clearer to use this information as the subject > for this reply already? > > Are you fine with that this change approach was recorded in > a possibly questionable format? > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10165193/ Sure. It does not seem anyone involved cares about patchwork. > > Allocating memory to store clk array together with driver > > data simplifies error unwinding and allows deleting memory > > allocation failure message as there is now only single point > > where allocation could fail. > > * Will it matter to mention the previous software situation a bit > in such a commit description? > > * Would you like to add a tag “link”? Are you okay with this one? https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/15/411 > * Are you going to “supersede” any more source code adjustments > around questionable error messages? I'm going to handle it usual way: - wait for feedback and modify accordingly - collect tags - resend as v2 Also, patch contains all your changes, so you should be credited somehow - hence the need for v2 anyway. What about: [marcus: simplified error unwinding, error message removal] Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Feel free to propose anything else. Best regards, ladis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
