mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
	Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:52:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5560ffc2-e17d-5750-24e5-3150aba5d8aa@grinta.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3ab238e-02f0-2511-9be1-a1447e7639bc@users.sourceforge.net>

On 10/12/16 15:10, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Despite that, you have found several instances of similar constructs:
> 
> Yes. - Special source code search pattern can point such places out
> for further considerations.

This is one of the things that makes reviewing the patches you submit
quire annoying: if a class of changes has already been turned town, why
do you insist in proposing it?

>> Didn't it occur to you that maybe those constructs are fine the way
>> they are and this is the idiomatic way to write that kind of code?
> 
> Such a programming approach might look convenient. - I would prefer
> a safer coding style for the corresponding exception handling.

Can you please point out what is wrong in the current code and how the
changes you propose fix the problem?  Clearly the people reading your
patches do not see the problem you are seeing.

>> Why are you submitting patches implementing changes that have already
>> been rejected?
> 
> The feedback to my update mixture is varying between acceptance and
> disagreements as usual.

No one has expressed acceptance for the kind of change you propose with
this patch, or to previous patches you proposed changing similar constructs.

>> Judging from your recent submissions, it seems that this process is not
>> working well for you. I'm probably not the only one that is wonderign
>> what are you trying to obtain with your patch submissions, other than
>> having your name in the git log.
> 
> I am picking some change possibilities up in the hope of related
> software improvements.

The fact that you propose over and over again a class of changes that
has been already vocally rejected would suggest otherwise. The major
achievement you obtained so far is that one of the maintainers of a
large fraction of the kernel refuses to look at your patch submissions.

Maybe you should revise how you contribute to Linux kernel development.
Apparently ignoring comments to your previous patch submission and not
showing that you have been learning from previous interactions, is not
going to help.

Cheers,
Daniele

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-11 21:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-10 20:45 [PATCH 0/4] [media] bt8xx: Fine-tuning for three functions SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-10 20:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-10 21:29   ` Daniele Nicolodi
2016-12-10 22:10     ` SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-11 21:52       ` Daniele Nicolodi [this message]
2016-12-12  7:33         ` SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-12  7:39           ` Daniele Nicolodi
2016-12-12 17:15             ` SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-12 17:56               ` Daniele Nicolodi
2016-12-12 18:03             ` Clarification for acceptance statistics? SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-12 21:02               ` Daniele Nicolodi
2016-12-12 22:11                 ` SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-12 23:19                   ` Daniele Nicolodi
2016-12-12 19:11             ` [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection Dan Carpenter
2016-12-10 20:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] [media] bt8xx: Delete two error messages for a failed memory allocation SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-10 20:51 ` [PATCH 3/4] [media] bt8xx: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in ca_send_message() SF Markus Elfring
2016-12-10 20:53 ` [PATCH 4/4] [media] bt8xx: Less function calls in dst_ca_ioctl() after error detection SF Markus Elfring

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5560ffc2-e17d-5750-24e5-3150aba5d8aa@grinta.net \
    --to=daniele@grinta.net \
    --cc=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=hans.verkuil@cisco.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=khoroshilov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®