From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751161AbdEaPIj (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 11:08:39 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:39596 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750998AbdEaPIh (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 11:08:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20170531.110833.1362264472730468352.davem@davemloft.net> To: daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Cc: airlied@gmail.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, jani.nikula@linux.intel.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Wed, 31 May 2017 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Daniel Vetter Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200 > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: >>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Vetter >>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200 >>>> >>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements >>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed. >>>> >>>> That's not how things work. >>>> >>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you >>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted. >> >> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it. > > And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report > complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and > the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its > sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real > functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this > regression just can't be fixed already. And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is less work than making several postings such as this one.