Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

> If this was code that affected all systems, the impact would be greater > - and it would be much easier to test. I can follow such a view to some degree. Would you dare to test the deletion of questionable error messages more with any other software components? > As it applies only to

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

> If this was code that affected all systems, the impact would be greater > - and it would be much easier to test. I can follow such a view to some degree. Would you dare to test the deletion of questionable error messages more with any other software components? > As it applies only to

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:41:04AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > I understand it can be frustrating to encounter different policies > > across kernel maintainers. > > The change acceptance is varying for special transformation patterns. > > > > You'll even run in to this with maintainers

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:41:04AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > I understand it can be frustrating to encounter different policies > > across kernel maintainers. > > The change acceptance is varying for special transformation patterns. > > > > You'll even run in to this with maintainers

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

> I understand it can be frustrating to encounter different policies > across kernel maintainers. The change acceptance is varying for special transformation patterns. > You'll even run in to this with maintainers of the same subsystem > from time to time. Interesting, isn't it? > I'm

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

> I understand it can be frustrating to encounter different policies > across kernel maintainers. The change acceptance is varying for special transformation patterns. > You'll even run in to this with maintainers of the same subsystem > from time to time. Interesting, isn't it? > I'm

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:49:43PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 16:10 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, > [] > > Andy and Henrique raised a few reasons why these patches should not be > > accepted: > > > > 1. This is init code (so any

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 04:49:43PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 16:10 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, > [] > > Andy and Henrique raised a few reasons why these patches should not be > > accepted: > > > > 1. This is init code (so any

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 16:10 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, [] > Andy and Henrique raised a few reasons why these patches should not be > accepted: > > 1. This is init code (so any space savings is short lived) Not exactly true. The object code itself is

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 16:10 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, [] > Andy and Henrique raised a few reasons why these patches should not be > accepted: > > 1. This is init code (so any space savings is short lived) Not exactly true. The object code itself is

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 08:12:21AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? > > > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, > > Have you got special software development concerns? > > > > unless they are really causing some

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 08:12:21AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? > > > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, > > Have you got special software development concerns? > > > > unless they are really causing some

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

>> Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, Have you got special software development concerns? > unless they are really causing some sort of issue (which?). Can the code be redundant here? > Doing it just for

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

>> Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, Have you got special software development concerns? > unless they are really causing some sort of issue (which?). Can the code be redundant here? > Doing it just for

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions > > > > This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. > > I would rather not touch this. > > Do you find the Linux allocation failure report

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions > > > > This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. > > I would rather not touch this. > > Do you find the Linux allocation failure report

Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:26 PM, SF Markus Elfring > wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:23:45 +0100 > > > > Two update suggestions were taken into account > >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:26 PM, SF Markus Elfring > wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:23:45 +0100 > > > > Two update suggestions were taken into account > > from static source code analysis. > > > > Markus Elfring (2): >

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:23 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions >> >> This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. >> I would rather not touch this. > > Do you

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:23 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions >> >> This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. >> I would rather not touch this. > > Do you find the Linux allocation failure

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

>> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions > > This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. > I would rather not touch this. Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? >> Improve a size

Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

>> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions > > This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. > I would rather not touch this. Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? >> Improve a size

Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:26 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:23:45 +0100 > > Two update suggestions were taken into account > from static source code analysis. > > Markus Elfring (2): >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:26 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:23:45 +0100 > > Two update suggestions were taken into account > from static source code analysis. > > Markus Elfring (2): > Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in

[PATCH 0/2] platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

From: Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:23:45 +0100 Two update suggestions were taken into account from static source code analysis. Markus Elfring (2): Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions Improve a size

[PATCH 0/2] platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations

From: Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:23:45 +0100 Two update suggestions were taken into account from static source code analysis. Markus Elfring (2): Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions Improve a size determination in tpacpi_new_rfkill()