[Intel-gfx] [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

David Miller davem at davemloft.net
Wed May 31 15:08:33 UTC 2017


From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200

> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem at davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200
>>>>
>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements
>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how things work.
>>>>
>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you
>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted.
>>
>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it.
> 
> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report
> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and
> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its
> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real
> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this
> regression just can't be fixed already.

And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is
less work than making several postings such as this one.


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list