Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions

From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>,
	Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:49:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c504db1d-415a-9bd4-172c-b1c17dd3740f@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711280844180.2450@hadrien>

>>>> It seems that I got no responses so far for clarification requests
>>>> according to the documentation in a direction I hoped for.
>>>
>>> That's because you are pretty unresponsive to direction.
>>
>> From which places did you get this impression?
> 
> Perhaps from the text that you have written only four lines below.
> All comments are dismissed as "the usual mixture of disagreements and acceptance".

A mixture will always evolve.

* Some acceptance might not need further considerations.

* But the disagreements are remembered differently.
  They have got a potential for further improvements in some areas.

> If you look at the patches sent by others, who learn from
> the feedback provided to them,

I am also learning to some degree continuously.

> there are not so many responses on the disagreements side.

How do you think about to look at the details for such an observation?

> So the mixture is not usual.

I find that it can be also a matter of statistics.

> Since you send lots of patches on the same issues,

Yes. - I am trying to fix some implementation details by the means
of source code analysis and corresponding transformation.
The patch count is still growing.

> there should be no disagreements at all at this point.

I got an other impression. The probability for disagreements is increasing
in relation to the number of contributors to which I show change possibilities.

There are also other open issues remaining which can get another
solution somehow.

Regards,
Markus