lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:56:49PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> Sorry for that, I just ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl to get expert's
> name and added them into each patch. The reason this change is made is
> in patch 3/3. Test robot reported a code bug on the latest kernel, will
> repost and CC everyone in all patches.
>
>
> Rob Herring asked the same question in v2, I explained to him. The
> discussion can be found here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/10/484

... and when I open that link, the first paragraph says:

"This is the explanation I made when Andrew helped to review the v1 post:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/23/78"

Do you see the absurdity of the link chasing of your explanation?!

Instead, the explanation *WHY* should be in the commit message of the
patch - not in mail replies when people ask you about it.

Also, do not use lkml.org when referencing a mail on lkml but
use the Message-ID of the header. We have a proper redirector at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<Message-ID>

Now lemme read the reason finally...

"We need unify these two interfaces on behaviour since they are the same
on essense from the users' point of view... "

That's not a good enough reason for me to cause code churn. If the only
reason is: because the one does it top-down and the other bottom-up, I'm
not convinced.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-26 13:10    [W:0.075 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site