> Your updates were not improvements.
I find your view interesting.
Do you refer to a specific wording suggestion here?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/26028f50-3fb8-eb08-3c9f-08ada018b...@web.de/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/2/210
You pointed another programming alternative out.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:36 PM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:05:18PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >> I find this commit message improvable also according to Linux software
> > >> development documentation.
>
> > > Causing people to send out new versions of things for tweaks
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:05:18PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> I find this commit message improvable also according to Linux software
> >> development documentation.
> > Causing people to send out new versions of things for tweaks to the
> > commit log consumes time for them and everyone
>> I find this commit message improvable also according to Linux software
>> development documentation.
>
> Causing people to send out new versions of things for tweaks to the
> commit log consumes time for them and everyone they're sending changes to.
Improving patches (besides source code
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:02:11PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The original changelog is perfectly fine, please stop sending these.
> I find this commit message improvable also according to Linux software
> development documentation.
Causing people to send out new versions of things for
> The original changelog is perfectly fine, please stop sending these.
I find this commit message improvable also according to Linux software
development documentation.
Regards,
Markus
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 11:36:37PM -0500, Navid Emamdoost wrote:
> The counter is incremented via pm_runtime_get even in failure case.
> To correct the counter call pm_runtime_put in case of failure, too.
Someone already sent a fix for this but in any case this isn't the
correct fix -
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:40:33AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The counter is incremented via pm_runtime_get even in failure case.
> > To correct the counter call pm_runtime_put in case of failure, too.
>
> How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
>
>Change
> The counter is incremented via pm_runtime_get even in failure case.
> To correct the counter call pm_runtime_put in case of failure, too.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Change description:
The PM runtime reference counter is generally incremented by a call
The counter is incremented via pm_runtime_get even in failure case.
To correct the counter call pm_runtime_put in case of failure, too.
Signed-off-by: Navid Emamdoost
---
drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-ti-qspi.c
10 matches
Mail list logo
