[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2026011019-worried-monstrous-7837@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2026 14:22:38 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: 2023060904@....edu.cn
Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
guagua210311@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rtl8723bs: io: Add independent
rtw_check_continual_io_error function
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 06:17:58PM +0800, 2023060904@....edu.cn wrote:
> From: changjunzheng <guagua210311@...com>
Please use your real name (either in native characters, or not, but with
spaces where correct.)
> Add a new function to check if the error count exceeds the MAX_CONTINUAL_IO_ERR
> threshold. This function follows the single responsibility principle and
> prepares for the subsequent removal of the global continual_io_error variable.
>
> Changelog v3 -> v4:
> 1. Split the single v3 patch into 4 logical patches (per Greg KH's request)
> 2. Fix all coding style errors (trailing spaces, missing assignment spaces, indentation)
> 3. Add clear, purpose-driven commit messages for each patch
> 4. Add version changelog as required by kernel documentation
> 5. Add blank line before new function declaration to comply with coding style
I think my bot pointed you at the documentation, that says this all goes
below the --- line, right?
And what about the changes from 1 -> 2 and 2 -> 3?
Please fix up and resend a new series (v5?)
Also, the subject line does not have the version in it :(
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists