From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965056AbcIXRDR (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:03:17 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0136.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.136]:50519 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755556AbcIXRDQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:03:16 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2828:2895:2911:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3867:3868:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:4425:5007:6119:6691:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:12760:13069:13311:13357:13439:14659:14721:21080:21324:21451:30054:30070:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: owner31_565baa60b6a0e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1777 Message-ID: <1474736592.23838.8.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr_fmt" for module "joydump" From: Joe Perches To: SF Markus Elfring , Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:03:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <3345f7c1-b823-a819-aabf-5b4990068075@users.sourceforge.net> <20160924164108.GB40187@dtor-ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.21.91-1ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 18:55 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt > > Why did you split it off from the patch where you attempt to use it? > I chose a special patch granularity once again. > > What good does this change do on its own? > 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. Please don't purposefully waste other people's time. It makes your patch proposals _less_ likely to be applied.