[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:49:22 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: 唐彬 <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: hwrng: omap - Delete an error message in
of_get_omap_rng_device_details()
> I don't know why you always cc me in your patch
> which is similar type I have submitted。
I noticed your selection of possible changes (and corresponding patch reviews).
* Thus I assumed that you are interested in further software evolution
to some degree in such a design direction.
Do you want that I omit your mail address from my patches?
* I picked also a few of your change ideas up for their application
together with development tools I am familiar with.
> Let me study
I hope so.
> to thank you ?
This possibility can also be occasionally nice.
> You are a senior,
Such a view might be appropriate.
> I have thanked you for your instruction,
I hope that our collaboration will evolve further in constructive ways.
> and I have understand what your question:
Would we like to achieve a better common understanding?
> How do you think about to change any more source files in a systematic way?
Advanced source code analysis can point several update candidates out.
An execution of a script for the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software)
indicates change possibilities around calls of the function “platform_get_irq”
in 74 source files of the software “Linux next-20200402” at the moment.
Source code search patterns can be extended after some clarification.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists