From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr_fmt" for module "joydump" Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 19:45:15 +0200 Message-ID: <40016728-7a21-df83-f6a3-d936c928ed30@users.sourceforge.net> References: <3345f7c1-b823-a819-aabf-5b4990068075@users.sourceforge.net> <20160924164108.GB40187@dtor-ws> <1474736592.23838.8.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1474736592.23838.8.camel@perches.com> Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org >> I find that it is a preparation. - If this addition could not be accepted, >> the following update step would also be discussed under an other perspective, >> wouldn't it? > > It's purposeless, creates unnecessary patches to review > and generally wastes other people's time. I have got an other opinion about this. > Please don't purposefully waste other people's time. I do not want to "waste" your time. - But I can imagine that I stress your software development attention to some degree as I am publishing a significant number of update suggestions according to a bit of static source code analysis. > It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied. The acceptance varies as usual. 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? Regards, Markus