From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc: 周琰杰 <zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
"Dongsheng Qiu" <dongsheng.qiu@ingenic.com>,
"Felipe Balbi" <balbi@kernel.org>,
qipengzhen <aric.pzqi@ingenic.com>,
"Rick Tyliu" <rick.tyliu@ingenic.com>,
"Yanfei Li" <yanfei.li@ingenic.com>,
zhenwenjin@gmail.com, 周正 <sernia.zhou@foxmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: PHY: JZ4770: Fix static checker warning
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:00:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200825100030.GA1347872@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96687bd5-aa10-b908-471a-31e8daa01472@web.de>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:35:16AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The commit 2a6c0b82e651 ("USB: PHY: JZ4770: Add support for new
> > Ingenic SoCs.") introduced the initialization function for different
> > chips, but left the relevant code involved in the resetting process
> > in the original function, resulting in uninitialized variable calls.
>
> * Can another imperative wording be helpful for the change description?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=d012a7190fc1fd72ed48911e77ca97ba4521bccd#n151
>
> * How do you think about to mention any source code analysis tool here?
>
> * Would an other commit subject be more appropriate?
>
>
> > Fixes: 2a6c0b82e651 ("USB: PHY: JZ4770: Add support for new
> > Ingenic SoCs.").
>
> Please omit a line break for this tag.
>
>
> I find that a single patch would not need a cover letter.
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-25 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <96687bd5-aa10-b908-471a-31e8daa01472@web.de>]
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200825100030.GA1347872@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
--cc=aric.pzqi@ingenic.com \
--cc=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=dongsheng.qiu@ingenic.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rick.tyliu@ingenic.com \
--cc=sernia.zhou@foxmail.com \
--cc=yanfei.li@ingenic.com \
--cc=zhenwenjin@gmail.com \
--cc=zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).