From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr_fmt" for module "joydump" Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:01:03 -0700 Message-ID: <1474740063.23838.18.camel@perches.com> References: <3345f7c1-b823-a819-aabf-5b4990068075@users.sourceforge.net> <20160924164108.GB40187@dtor-ws> <1474736592.23838.8.camel@perches.com> <40016728-7a21-df83-f6a3-d936c928ed30@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <40016728-7a21-df83-f6a3-d936c928ed30@users.sourceforge.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 19:45 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > It's purposeless, creates unnecessary patches to review > > and generally wastes other people's time. > I have got an other opinion about this. Nice for you, not nice for others that have to act on your patch proposals to get them forwarded upstream. > > Please don't purposefully waste other people's time. > I do not want to "waste" your time. When a chorus of voices says to you that you are wasting their time, perhaps you listen to their song. > > It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied. > The acceptance varies as usual. Usual for whom? It seems to me your patch proposals have a relatively high unapplied patch percentage and there is an increase in the number of upstream maintainers that ignore you. > I see also another option. > > * Can the first three update steps from this small patch series be integrated >   while the fourth needs further adjustments (where I went a bit too far)? > > * Do you prefer to squash the last two update steps together? Yes, the overall number of patches should be minimized when the suggested patches are highly related.