From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933437Ab0HEOns (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:43:48 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:34524 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933394Ab0HEOnk (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:43:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:43:36 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Axel Lin Cc: linux-kernel , Liam Girdwood , Marek Szyprowski , Kyungmin Park Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret value checking in lp3971_i2c_write() Message-ID: <20100805144336.GA26801@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1280979638.1238.2.camel@mola> <20100805121145.GD13146@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: Reply hazy, ask again later. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:22:13PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote: > 2010/8/5 Mark Brown : > > but can I once more renew my request that you make some effort to > > provide subject lines for your patches which are consistent with the > > standard used for the area of the kernel you're submitting to? > I think we have communication problem. > I thought the subject "[PATCH 1/2] lp3971: remove unnecessary ret > value checking in lp3971_i2c_write()" > is pretty clear. > Or do you mean something else? In this case pretty much every regulator API patch has a subject line starting "regulator: " but none of your patches do this, you have created your own style which you use over all your patches.