Re: [PATCH] net: ath9k: use devm for request_irq

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@kernel.org>]

Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> writes:

> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@kernel.org> writes:
>
>>> But honestly more and more I'm starting to think that we should just
>>> reject all these "drive-by cleanups". We have better things to do than
>>> fixing unnecessary their bugs. Thoughts?
>>
>> Hmm, yeah, maybe. I do kinda like the fact that people send patches to
>> improve small things, though. We all started out as new to the kernel,
>> and I appreciate the fact that people try to improve our "commons" in
>> this way even if it's small things.
>
> Yeah, you have a point. It's just that the extra work from cleanups
> feels so unnecessary compared to the practical benefits. And most of the
> time we don't hear from these people ever again, that's why I call them
> "drive-by cleanup".

Sure, I share the frustration, and not everyone turns into regular
contributors. But I like to think that even those who don't get
something else out of it at least. And on our side I guess there's a
balance to be struck between being welcoming and not expending too much
effort on it :)

>> I do try to be critical of things that can break stuff before ack'ing
>> these fixes, but I'll admit that it seems like I don't have that great
>> of a track record for judging "correct" in this context (cf this one,
>> and that debugfs regression). So I guess you're right that I should at
>> least raise the bar somewhat; will try to recalibrate and say no more :)
>
> You are doing a great job :) Nobody can catch all bugs in review, I
> would say there is a small percentage (5%?) of all cleanup patches that
> cause issues. Though it would be cool to see some real statistics.

Thanks! Yeah, would love to see some statistics, but I suppose it's not
trivial to identity "cleanup patches" in the first place in a way that
can be automated. Maybe something to poke at sometime one has time to
spare (ha!) or needs a break from the regular drudgery :)

-Toke