On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
>>> 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.
Not sure if it's really preferred if regression reports come
incomplete, without bugfix and bisect attached.
-Daniel
>> I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already.
>>
>> Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the
>> original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver
>> if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer.
>
> Ok, can we pls revert 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") then?
>
> Thanks, Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
