From: "Rafał Miłecki" <email@example.com>
To: Ian Molton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Arend Van Spriel <email@example.com>,
Franky Lin <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Hante Meuleman <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Broadcom fmac wireless driver cleanup
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:38:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACna6rzdKyoUfS00GB-nJS_TNoa7znhnDaKQ8XFN979SZSOy1w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Gmail seems to mark your replies as spam :(
On 17 July 2017 at 11:34, Ian Molton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 17/07/17 05:53, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote:
>> I looked at 4 random patches and none got any description. Not to
>> mention their chaotic subjects. In this state I can't even review it.
>> If you want to have some change accepted, you've to convince us it's
>> needed. Work on cleaning your patches and resend them. You also need
>> to signed off your changes.
> This isn't my first rodeo. I know there are only outline descriptions,
> and no Sob.
> Thats because this is an RFC. You sign off *finished* work.
Sending signed patches, include RFCs is much more convenient. It
allows e.g. other people to pick your work if you won't manage to get
in accepted for some reason.
> This is a codebase I'm not 100% familiar with, and I don't know the
> maintainers - Im not going to polish patches if they aren't then going
> to get accepted upstream.
> I'm looking for comments on the actual *code*. Review requires *reading*
> it. Review is not just "I read the description and it looked ok at the
> time" - Thats clearly how this code got into this state in the first plac=
I don't expect patches to be perfectly polished at RFC phase. I also
never said I'm interested in description only. Don't expect to get
nicely described hack to get accepted for that reason.
Description is supposed to provide a context for the changes. It's
easier to review *code changes* knowing what you are trying to
fix/achieve. It saves a lot of guessing time.
> Honestly, the patch robot has given more useful feedback than the humans
> on here thus far.
> But hey, if thats how patch submission works these days... I'll add some
> descriptions. But I'd better not be polishing this stuff for no reason.
Insulting maintainers may not be the best way of getting your stuff
reviewed & accepted.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-17 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-16 11:21 RFC: Broadcom fmac wireless driver cleanup Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 01/21] net: brcmfmac: Write function depends on size of regs not types Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 02/21] net: brcmfmac: Fix brain damaged fn parameter order Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 03/21] bcmfmac: simplify brcmf_sdiod_abort Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 04/21] brcmfmac: Do away with this abomination: Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 05/21] brcmfmac: its ALWAYS 4 Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 06/21] brcmfmac: Clean up SDIO IO functions Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 07/21] brcmfmac: Split buff_rw function up + cleanup annoying bcmerror variable Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 08/21] brcmfmac: Sanitise all byte-wise IO Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 09/21] brcmfmac: tidy header a bit Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 10/21] brcmfmac: Further SDIO addressing cleanup Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 11/21] brcmfmac: cleanup horrid offsetof() mess Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 12/21] brcmfmac: Fix awfully named #define and crap multi-stage if...elseif clause Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 13/21] brcmfmac: HACK - stabilise the value of ->sbwad in use for some xfer routines Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 14/21] brcmfmac: Get rid of hideous chip_priv and core_priv structs Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 15/21] brcmfmac: Simplify chip probe routine Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 16/21] brcmfmac: rename axi functions for clarity Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 17/21] brcmfmac: HUGE cleanup of IO access functions Ian Molton
2017-07-16 15:16 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-16 15:16 ` [PATCH] brcmfmac: fix boolreturn.cocci warnings kbuild test robot
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 18/21] brcmfmac: rename ctx -> bus_priv Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 19/21] brcmfmac: Remove repeated and annoying calls to brcmf_chip_get_core() Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 20/21] brcmfmac: general cleanup Ian Molton
2017-07-16 11:21 ` [PATCH 21/21] brcmfmac: rename horridly named IO functions Ian Molton
2017-07-17 4:53 ` RFC: Broadcom fmac wireless driver cleanup Rafał Miłecki
2017-07-17 9:13 ` James Hughes
2017-07-17 9:45 ` Ian Molton
[not found] ` <email@example.com>
2017-07-17 10:38 ` Rafał Miłecki [this message]
2017-07-21 15:29 ` Kalle Valo
2017-07-17 12:41 ` Arend van Spriel
2017-07-17 15:56 ` Ian Molton
2017-07-17 17:40 ` Ian Molton
2017-07-17 16:18 ` Ian Molton
2017-07-17 16:20 ` Ian Molton
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).