> > __ipmi_bmc_register() jumps to the label 'out_free_my_dev_name' in an
> > error path. So we can remove duplicate code in the if (rv).
>
> Looks correct, queued for next release.
1. Can an imperative wording be preferred for the change description?
2. Will the tag “Fixes” become helpful for the commit message?
3. Did you avoid a typo in the patch subject?
Regards,
Markus
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 02:07:50PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > __ipmi_bmc_register() jumps to the label 'out_free_my_dev_name' in an
> > > error path. So we can remove duplicate code in the if (rv).
> >
> > Looks correct, queued for next release.
>
> 1. Can an imperative wording be preferred for the change description?
>
> 2. Will the tag “Fixes” become helpful for the commit message?
>
> 3. Did you avoid a typo in the patch subject?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
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