[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68dcf04d-ade3-b67a-144d-33bd5ebd0049@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 22:12:20 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: staging: ks7010: Replace three printk() calls by pr_err()
> You might have noticed I also wrote in the same reply:
>
> "All of these pr_fmt uses are redundant as pr_err already does pr_fmt"
I admit that I made another software development mistake there. - It might not matter much
when a final fix could be to get rid of the three affected logging calls for example.
> It is not just principle.
> It is a fundamental for kernel patch submission.
I hope that this view supports still the reordering for update steps after some discussion.
> I am not an upstream path.
> Greg KH generally serves that function here.
> My suggestion would be to resend the entire patchset as V(n+1).
I am curious if it would make sense to reduce the mail traffic a bit by finding out
which software changes can be accepted already.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists