[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8a751660-a268-1153-8d94-94d994772689@web.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:40:05 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dmaengine: stm32-dma: call pm_runtime_put if
pm_runtime_get_sync fails
>> How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
> Please stop proposing rewording on my patches!
I am trying to remind you on open issues according to patch review concerns.
> I will consider updating my patches only if a maintainer asks for it.
* I hope that more contributors would like to improve the software quality
also for commit messages.
* Would the adjusted patch prefix need a different version indication?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists