Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: spi: spi-ti-qspi: call pm_runtime_put on pm_runtime_get failure | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Tue, 2 Jun 2020 21:54:49 +0200 |
| |
> Your updates were not improvements.
I find your view interesting.
Do you refer to a specific wording suggestion here? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/26028f50-3fb8-eb08-3c9f-08ada018bf9e@web.de/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/2/210
You pointed another programming alternative out. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/comment/1447149/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20200602095411.GB5684@sirena.org.uk/
> The formatting was worse
Do you prefer an other quotation style for function names?
> and to my native speaker eyes the grammar was worse.
I am curious if a more pleasing wording variant will be found.
> With this sort of stylistic thing it's especially important > that any review aligns with the needs and practices of the subsystem,
Such an expectation is reasonable to some degree.
> there is opinion in there and multiple opinions just makes things harder > for submitters.
Do any of such views deviate from the Linux development documentation?
Regards, Markus
| |