On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:14:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> > > i2c-qup driver.
> >
> > * This wording contains a typo.
>
> Doesn't matter to me for a cover
>> * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
>> source code quality concerns.
>
> Not needed. I understand what is going on here.
I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of “ensurance”
after only a few source code places were adjusted.
>>> Changes in …
>>
>> Can such a
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> > i2c-qup driver.
>
> * This wording contains a typo.
Doesn't matter to me for a cover letter as long as we can understand it.
> * I would prefer to refer to a
> Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> i2c-qup driver.
* This wording contains a typo.
* I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
source code quality concerns.
> Changes in …
Can such a prefix be omitted?
Regards,
Markus
Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
i2c-qup driver.
Refer below links for more information.
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr
https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck
Changes in v2:
* Updated changelog as suggested by Markus Elfring.
v1:
5 matches
Mail list logo