From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760100AbcIXRp2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:45:28 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:61769 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758922AbcIXRp0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:45:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr_fmt" for module "joydump" To: Joe Perches References: <3345f7c1-b823-a819-aabf-5b4990068075@users.sourceforge.net> <20160924164108.GB40187@dtor-ws> <1474736592.23838.8.camel@perches.com> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <40016728-7a21-df83-f6a3-d936c928ed30@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 19:45:15 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1474736592.23838.8.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:IhOWx5TUg0HUEkNH3h/ZxOeHNQd3I1+FHa9kqOPD8KZbOx3zHBF cKXsd/xA+PuvLb7WVRsjTpvFt3tgEwgkh9bYIhXiO80PwfHJO+oluRcWo5GL1hm5+KZGp6n t/IDRz35uWeKsbu+48rKA4Yw+pb52FA9YjVBx1XMBGO4d2oXA+GI2ldUbYJqJL8a1idQqCD UlGRz2jlwsVCe61yagJRw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:0uWDkVHCSgY=:BefTrsqW2TVKKa4KiBFyOk WfrptKQKsC0WeY67THCbI6jmWUDy7xfWoCQU7Qn/h/cp23RLNPrvlApAWnN1gH1uAlw4Gbr9V mo1GHKe+kIY6mcwSVJbPDrnhbXdjCtZJH+7utrwmJVLRan49x2BDyqppkPt7phykg7cq062RK lZQXEZJ1ALzvXnfJ2p0A1DGew6mtuok11zXTn5Ejq4mWcO4GS3KTUE3Bon/ir0ZChYATat8Cn OrQKT7pP5jIIW2k2FaAN4gEGCXiH70x/nWYJiTCBubG7V/ILdJ5kdw7BGy/F72QS6JJGo72gG 3r2mFpQi8iYA4DYW4aQdSjis6M5Uy+4foZe92SrHtF4xtjW817ht6KoW9aume3Z6Npj0CAmZT 5HqQqrWski5sklsGjHWQjRtNrnNMtuGnmbN9JmQf27cBzNSaXu1Bd7sskP+pZER6Xbi/3tS2S y/QUpTXwHhMbgLVB2dOiihwSkRifpxnBSmGS9VeqMfhcOh/3Q7er+qTPrjqnMXYlk+hTdiu/S 2bbw235ogQYRGyWqg3coJBonlUp2EVsM899Rb9Ytk2Z4cbo7LqLK1M7dpKr3IAmEmjaqLb1P2 VpVWywsngMRjRbeMudBaYJmeSYBzq8Z41xTtSwicAZff5+37RWaAt30AM9UP0Lnxc3dA4faRB 0ObRYNEDBGMVDXPenDgv4o/7uIbq7oB4SBrUUnWHVIo3+RdBpX5AfY7ROSIzGJ2wompZ77/HL Rd5gE14n+NwFlYXcqrbemWym8eJHZj9sVyLezPRXi+Kg/b4wgagBgU6blXgXH5/808lyZWzA9 z+hHuz8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> I find that it is a preparation. - If this addition could not be accepted, >> the following update step would also be discussed under an other perspective, >> wouldn't it? > > It's purposeless, creates unnecessary patches to review > and generally wastes other people's time. I have got an other opinion about this. > Please don't purposefully waste other people's time. I do not want to "waste" your time. - But I can imagine that I stress your software development attention to some degree as I am publishing a significant number of update suggestions according to a bit of static source code analysis. > It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied. The acceptance varies as usual. I see also another option. * Can the first three update steps from this small patch series be integrated while the fourth needs further adjustments (where I went a bit too far)? * Do you prefer to squash the last two update steps together? Regards, Markus