From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759830AbcIXSBM (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 14:01:12 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0051.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.51]:34853 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755304AbcIXSBH (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 14:01:07 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2559:2562:2828:2895:2911:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:4425:5007:6691:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:13069:13146:13161:13163:13229:13230:13311:13357:13439:13894:14659:21080:30034:30054:30070:30091,0,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: route69_973ba0653b25 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2383 Message-ID: <1474740063.23838.18.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: Input-gameport: Add the macro "pr_fmt" for module "joydump" From: Joe Perches To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:01:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <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> <40016728-7a21-df83-f6a3-d936c928ed30@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.21.91-1ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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.