On Sun, 10 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >
> > Do you know when these bugs were introduced?
> 
> I suggest to take another look at a provided tag “Fixes”.

If you can't determine when the bug was introduced, how can you criticise 
a patch for the lack of a Fixes tag?

> To which commit would you like to refer to for the proposed adjustment 
> of the function “mac_sonic_platform_probe”?
> 

That was my question to you. We seem to be talking past each other. 
Unforunately I only speak English, so if this misunderstanding is to be 
resolved, you're going to have to try harder to make yourself understood.

> > Naming goto labels is just painting another bikeshed. Yes, some 
> > alternatives are preferable but it takes too long to identify them and 
> > finding consensus is unlikely anyway, as it's a matter of taste.
> 
> Would you find numbered labels unwanted according to a possible 
> interpretation related to 'GW-BASIC' identifier selection?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=e99332e7b4cda6e60f5b5916cf9943a79dbef902#n460
> 

My preference is unimportant here. Therefore, your question must be 
rhetorical. I presume that you mean to assert that Christophe's patch 
breaches the style guide.

However, 'sonic_probe1' is the name of a function. The name of the goto 
label 'undo_probe1' reflects the name of the function.

This is not some sequence of GW-BASIC labels referred to in the style 
guide. And neither does the patch add new functions with numbered names.

> Can programming preferences evolve into the direction of “say what the 
> goto does”?
> 

I could agree that macsonic.c has no function resembling "probe1", and 
that portion of the patch could be improved.

Was that the opinion you were trying to express by way of rhetorical 
questions? I can't tell.

Is it possible for a reviewer to effectively criticise C by use of 
English, when his C ability surpasses his English ability?

You needn't answer that question, but please do consider it.

> Regards,
> Markus
>