From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf() Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:28:37 +0200 Message-ID: <526621dc-ce01-77eb-035d-fd884bf31d2c@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net> <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net> <20161010110050.GA5687@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161010110050.GA5687@mwanda> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Richard Weinberger , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Guoqing Jiang , Jens Axboe , Mike Christie , Neil Brown , Shaohua Li , Tomasz Majchrzak , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-raid.ids > I am ignoring Markus patches It's a pity that you chose such a reaction. > and have told him that he should focus on bug fixes. I find that I suggest to improve something. Could you admit a few times that I found a "bug" you care also about at other source code places? > These patches don't add any value Can it be that you express a lower value for the Linux coding style here than desired as there might be other concerns behind such negative feedback? > and regularly introduce bugs. How do you think about to discuss corresponding facts further? > That said, "sizeof(*ptr)" is sort of official style. When this implementation detail is so official, I wonder then why some software developers can become "special" about the proposed update step like for this module. Regards, Markus