[PATCH] staging: Fix spacing between function name and parentheses

From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
Subject: [PATCH] staging: Fix spacing between function name and parentheses
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 21:23:03 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54583887.8030504@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8761ewzji4.fsf@nemi.mork.no>

Greetings Bjorn and others,
I sent this patch a few weeks ago and am really trying to to improve my rep here by sending solid patches.
In addition I understand the caution with my patches due to my terrible rep but it would be nice if someone
sends or acknowledges the patch as other people on this list have stated it's correct and good in previous 
emails to me. 
Nick

On 14-11-03 05:05 AM, Bj?rn Mork wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu writes:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:17:50 -0000, el_es said:
>>
>>> Maybe better to introduce a standard clear marker that
>>> able people just respond with, to alikes of nick:
>>>
>>> REJECTED-by: Name <address@email.server>
>>
>> We already do something like this.
>>
>> You'll on occasion see 'Nacked-By: ...' go by when a kernel hacker
>> wants to denote their displeasure with a given patch.  It's up to the
>> maintainer to decide how much credence to give to the Nack, based on the
>> relative reputations of the person submitting the patch and the person
>> nacking it, and any technical grounds given with the nack.
>>
>> So for instance, if Al Viro sticks a Nacked-By: on a submission, it's
>> going to be *really* hard to get a maintainer to accept the patch, because
>> Al has a very long history of almost always being right about such things.
> 
> Yes, but the technical grounds are still the reason the patch is not
> accepted.  Which is why a formalized nak is pointless.  It has no value
> without a verbose explanation of the technical grounds behind it. If Al
> Viro, or anyone else, use a simple one-line reject message, then I am
> pretty sure that is because they have already explained their objections
> somewhere else. I don't think anyone can reject anything merely on their
> personal reputation. And there is nowhere to record naks, so a standard
> label just isn't needed.
> 
> Rejecting is completely different from e.g. Acked-by, which both is a
> complete explanation ("I am fine with this patch as it is") and is
> recorded for future reference in the commit message.
> 
> 
> Bj?rn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
> 