From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: hid-sensor-accel-3d: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in hid_accel_3d_probe() To: Jonathan Cameron , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org Cc: Hartmut Knaack , Jiri Kosina , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , Srinivas Pandruvada , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <0406765c-bdd1-1a82-cf66-1c248063ae4f@users.sourceforge.net> <20180204112346.0977e938@archlinux> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <9420fc82-1a37-3601-bafe-f57ef953bfcd@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:26:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180204112346.0977e938@archlinux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: > If making changes like this I would suggest only sending one until > you have have a response from the relevant maintainer. The corresponding feedback can become more positive for such a transformation pattern after a while, can't it? > It would save you time as often these sorts of changes are > a matter of personal taste and weighing up of costs vs gains > - hence it is not obvious that they will be accepted. Can the wording “WARNING: Possible unnecessary 'out of memory' message” (from the script “checkpatch.pl”) be another incentive? Regards, Markus