linux-kernel - Re: spi: spi-ti-qspi: call pm_runtime_put on pm_runtime

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1d1a4e7a-1c1e-efeb-ad61-5e4f1eeecab1@web.de>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 21:54:49 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
        Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>,
        Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spi: spi-ti-qspi: call pm_runtime_put on pm_runtime_get failure

> Your updates were not improvements.

I find your view interesting.

Do you refer to a specific wording suggestion here?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/26028f50-3fb8-eb08-3c9f-08ada018bf9e@web.de/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/2/210

You pointed another programming alternative out.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/comment/1447149/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20200602095411.GB5684@sirena.org.uk/

> The formatting was worse

Do you prefer an other quotation style for function names?

> and to my native speaker eyes the grammar was worse.

I am curious if a more pleasing wording variant will be found.

> With this sort of stylistic thing it's especially important
> that any review aligns with the needs and practices of the subsystem,

Such an expectation is reasonable to some degree.

> there is opinion in there and multiple opinions just makes things harder
> for submitters.

Do any of such views deviate from the Linux development documentation?

Regards,
Markus