Re: exfat: add missing brelse() calls on error paths

From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>,
	"Sungjong Seo" <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>,
	"Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>,
	"Tetsuhiro Kohada" <kohada.t2@gmail.com>,
	"Wei Yongjun" <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>,
	"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: exfat: add missing brelse() calls on error paths
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 22:00:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <015e5093-d139-6bee-ca45-4cb0e871e65d@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200610192244.GK19604@bombadil.infradead.org>

> You're nitpicking commit messages.

I am occasionally trying to achieve corresponding improvements.

> This is exactly the kind of thing which drives people away.

Would you like to follow official patch process documentation?

> Dan's commit message is fine.

I have got the impression that he indicates another deviation from
a well-known requirement. I am curious under which circumstances
such a patch review concern will be taken into account finally.

> It's actually hilarious because your emails are so unclear that I
> can't understand them.

I find such feedback surprising and interesting.
I hope that we can reduce understanding difficulties together.

> I have no idea what "collateral evolution" means

This term expresses the situation that a single change can trigger
further changes.

Examples for programmers:
A)
* You add an argument to an used function.
* How many function calls will need related adjustments?

B)
* Some function calls can fail.
* How do you think about to complete error detection and the
  corresponding exception handling?

> and yet you use it in almost every email.

You exaggerate here.

> Why can't you use the same terminology the rest of us use?

I got also used to some wording approaches.
Which terminology variation do you prefer?

Regards,
Markus