From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 08:34:23 +0000 Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-QXL: Move three assignments in qxl_device_init() Message-Id: <5a98e827-4ac1-ee6f-171b-02de97927a69@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <20160922100257.GN13620@mwanda> <45c2ad6e-fadc-8d4a-f6bd-ddf8604ec622@users.sourceforge.net> <20160922202419.GP13620@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20160922202419.GP13620@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Bhaktipriya Shridhar , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Julia Lawall , Daniel Vetter , Tejun Heo , Thierry Reding >> Would you like to discuss the statistics for my failure (or success) rate >> a bit more so that involved issues can be clarified in a constructive way? > > It should be that you target 20 bug fixes for each new regression > that you add. How do you think about to clarify any concrete "regression" a bit more? > There is no hope for improving the kernel I have got an other impression. - I am trying to help also for this goal. > because you are not even trying to fix 20 bugs, Under which circumstances would you dare to acknowledge once more that I improved anything for which you care about? > only introducing them. It's a pity that you interpret some of my contributions in this way. > Once you fix 20 bugs, then you will be even and you can start sending > cleanups again. This is fair. How much will the suggested software refactorings influence the kind of error counter that you prefer so far? Regards, Markus