From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 08:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: <80ae8328-5851-01b0-cb31-474f7baf1686@users.sourceforge.net> References: <81459d11-693a-eb51-9173-9c189677f422@users.sourceforge.net> <20171223014033.jx7fzu7uzjfbzyca@khazad-dum.debian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171223014033.jx7fzu7uzjfbzyca@khazad-dum.debian.net> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Andy Shevchenko , Darren Hart , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org >> Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? > > Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, Have you got special software development concerns? > unless they are really causing some sort of issue (which?). Can the code be redundant here? > Doing it just for "compliance" with a doc isn't nearly good enough reason. Do you give only a low value to coding style guidelines in this use case? Regards, Markus