On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:34:25PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote: > > > >It's pointless to post a patch that you know has problems with it (i.e. > >it's not even in proper kernel coding style), as it will never be > >reviewed or even looked at. > > Thanks for the reply, and I'm sorry for the clumsy ask. > > I would still appreciate feedback on two points: > > 1. Is the basic premise reasonable? Is Hans correct in asserting that an > alternate USB over IP module will be considered? I have no idea, if it fully replaces the usbip functionality, I don't see why that would be rejected. But why can't you just fix up usbip for the issues you find lacking? > 2. Do I correctly understand that there are no circumstances where copied > code can be left unmodified? Even in the case where the copied code is > working, production code, and the changes would be just for style? I doubt the changes would just be for "style" if you are craming it into the kernel tree, as it's a totally different environment from any other place this code might have been running in before. > >Please do the most basic of polite things and fix this up before posting > >things. > > It is often difficult for a newcomer to know what the polite thing is, even > after studying FAQs and documentation. Did you read Documentation/SubmittingPatches? > I appreciate your patience (and clue bats) as I try to learn. > > > > >And really, all in one patch? That too is pretty hard to review... > > Yeah. I see the point of pain. I did not see a solution as I formed the > patch, but I'll try harder before resending. Remember you need to make this trivial to review in order to get it accepted. You have to do extra work because of this because our limited resource is reviewers and maintainers, not developers. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
