[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f21a82e5-810e-b153-651a-9f347dfe0216@web.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:36:52 +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: Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: stm32-dmamux: Fix pm_runtime_get_sync()
failure cases
> Please stop proposing rewording on my patches!
I find it interesting that you got into the mood to choose
another patch subject variant.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1252131/
https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20200603193648.19190-1-navid.emamdoost@gmail.com/
> I will consider updating my patches only if a maintainer asks for it.
Now I am curious if you would like take my patch review request into account
to avoid a typo there.
How will the quality evolve for such commit messages?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists