From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Check no constructor section Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:04:48 +0000 Message-ID: <51127F20.8010604@eu.citrix.com> References: <1360161180-3448-1-git-send-email-frediano.ziglio@citrix.com> <1360161180-3448-5-git-send-email-frediano.ziglio@citrix.com> <51127E6302000078000BC834@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <7CE799CC0E4DE04B88D5FDF226E18AC201058D45836D@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7CE799CC0E4DE04B88D5FDF226E18AC201058D45836D@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Frediano Ziglio Cc: "konrad@kernel.org" , "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , "JBeulich@suse.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/02/13 16:10, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 15:01 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 06.02.13 at 15:32, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>> Safety check for initialization objects. >>> Constructors are not used so check some module does not use them. >> Once again - why? >> >> And repeating earlier complaints of mine - why do you continue to >> re-post without having addressed all comments on prior revisions >> (verbally or by changing the patches)? This is just wasting >> reviewers' time. >> >> Jan >> > Nothing personal, I'm just a bad mail reader. In this case I checked > mails filtering with "cover" but your reply didn't have it on the > subject. If that's going to be your modus operandi, then *you* need to put the search term in your subject line; for example, by making your one-line summary "cover: Check no constructor section" -George