> Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> i2c-qup driver.
* This wording contains a typo.
* I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
source code quality concerns.
> Changes in …
Can such a prefix be omitted?
Regards,
Markus
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> > i2c-qup driver.
>
> * This wording contains a typo.
Doesn't matter to me for a cover letter as long as we can understand it.
> * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
> source code quality concerns.
Not needed. I understand what is going on here.
> > Changes in …
>
> Can such a prefix be omitted?
Why? I think it makes sense?
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:14:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> > > i2c-qup driver.
> >
> > * This wording contains a typo.
>
> Doesn't matter to me for a cover letter as long as we can understand it.
>
> > * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
> > source code quality concerns.
>
> Not needed. I understand what is going on here.
Markus - By "ensure", I mean there are no further cocciecheck issues at this
point in time. And further, what changed is covered in individual patch
changelog. So, I think this information is fine in cover.
> > Can such a prefix be omitted?
Can be, but I like to keep it.
Thanks for review.
-Saiyam