From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:20:33 +0000 Subject: Re: mfd-dm355evm_msp: One function call less in add_child() after error detection Message-Id: <5694EF91.70609@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <568284D3.3060006@users.sourceforge.net> <20160112115906.GD27358@x1> In-Reply-To: <20160112115906.GD27358@x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Lee Jones Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall > The subject format is wrong Which format do you expect? > and the summary itself isn't very informative. Which wording do you find more useful? >> From: Markus Elfring >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:56:42 +0100 > > This patch format is wrong, You might find the use of additional fields in the message body unusual. I have got an other impression from the canonical patch format. > please consider using `git format-patch` and `git send-email`. Thanks for your suggestion. >> The platform_device_put() function was called in one case by the >> add_child() function during error handling even if the passed >> variable "pdev" contained a null pointer. >> >> Implementation details could be improved by the adjustment of jump targets >> according to the Linux coding style convention. I am going to integrate the source code changes that you requested a bit later. >> +report_failure: >> + dev_err(&client->dev, "can't add %s dev\n", name); > > This isn't a very friendly error message. Better to convert the > dev_dbg() calls to dev_err() and tell the user what the problem was. Which information display would be more appropriate here? Regards, Markus