From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ladislav Michl Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:49:45 +0000 Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions Message-Id: <20171128084945.GA29091@lenoch> List-Id: References: <1511809633.32426.70.camel@perches.com> <1511833514.32426.86.camel@perches.com> <7e7e64cf-dbe5-614a-f1e5-29d7b6cf9297@users.sourceforge.net> <1511856244.19952.14.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1511856244.19952.14.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Joe Perches Cc: SF Markus Elfring , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "Andrew F. Davis" , Arvind Yadav , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:04:04AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 08:41 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > It seems that I got no responses so far for clarification requests > > > > according to the documentation in a direction I hoped for. > > > > > > That's because you are pretty unresponsive to direction. > > > > From which places did you get this impression? > > How many times have I told you to include the reason for > your patches in > your proposed commit message? Too often. > > For instance, specific to this patch: > > Many people do not know that a generic kmalloc does a > dump_stack() on OOM. That information should be part > of the commit message. > > Also removing the printk code reduces overall code size. > The actual size reduction should be described in the > commit message too. Could we, please, return one step back and reevaluate need for kmalloc. That would eliminate original "problem" as well. ladis