linux-kernel - Re: Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 24 Sep 2016 19:45:15 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr_fmt" for module "joydump"

>> I find that it is a preparation. - If this addition could not be accepted,
>> the following update step would also be discussed under an other perspective,
>> wouldn't it?
> 
> It's purposeless, creates unnecessary patches to review
> and generally wastes other people's time.

I have got an other opinion about this.

> Please don't purposefully waste other people's time.

I do not want to "waste" your time. - But I can imagine that I stress your
software development attention to some degree as I am publishing a significant
number of update suggestions according to a bit of static source code analysis.

> It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied.

The acceptance varies as usual.

I see also another option.

* Can the first three update steps from this small patch series be integrated
  while the fourth needs further adjustments (where I went a bit too far)?

* Do you prefer to squash the last two update steps together?

Regards,
Markus