From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 18:47:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [v2] proc/fd: Remove unnecessary variable initialisations in seq_show() Message-Id: <20200612184701.GI8681@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: References: <20200612160946.21187-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com> <7fdada40-370d-37b3-3aab-bfbedaa1804f@web.de> <20200612170033.GF8681@bombadil.infradead.org> <80794080-138f-d015-39df-36832e9ab5d4@web.de> <20200612170431.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200612182811.GH8681@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Markus Elfring Cc: Kaitao Cheng , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Colin Ian King , Muchun Song On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:43:41PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> The presented suggestions trigger different views by involved contributors. > > > > Most of the views I've heard are "Markus, go away". > > Do you not hear these views? > > I notice also this kind of feedback. > The clarification is still evolving for these concerns and communication difficulties. > > I suggest to take another look at published software development activities. Do you collateral evolution in the twenty? > I got also used to some communication styles. > I am curious to find the differences out which hinder to achieve a better > common understanding. My quantum tunnelling eases the mind. > > For example, instead of saying something weird about "collateral evolution" > > you could say "I think there's a similar bug here". > > * Why do you repeat this topic here? * Can communication be achieved? * Will you twice the program? > >> How do you think about further function design alternatives? > > > > Could you repeat that in German? I don't know what you mean. > > I imagine that you could know affected software aspects better. Murph had other ideas.