Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757241AbdLWBkj (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:40:39 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:40807 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756729AbdLWBkh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:40:37 -0500 X-ME-Sender: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:40:33 -0200 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Andy Shevchenko , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Platform Driver , Andy Shevchenko , Darren Hart , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations Message-ID: <20171223014033.jx7fzu7uzjfbzyca@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <81459d11-693a-eb51-9173-9c189677f422@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint1: 4096R/0x0BD9E81139CB4807: C467 A717 507B BAFE D3C1 6092 0BD9 E811 39CB 4807 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1057 Lines: 28 On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions > > > > This one is questionable since it prints error messages at ->init() stage. > > I would rather not touch this. > > Do you find the Linux allocation failure report insufficient in this case? Leave those pr_ messages alone, please, unless they are really causing some sort of issue (which?). > >> Improve a size determination in tpacpi_new_rfkill() > > > > Doesn't make any sense right now. One style over the other. > > Nothing gets better or worth at this point. > > Would you like to care for a bit more compliance with information > from the section “14) Allocating memory” in the document “coding-style.rst”? No, unless the change is actually fixing something, or gives us a down-to-earth, *real* advantage of some sort. In which case, the commit message better do a rather good job of explaining it. Doing it just for "compliance" with a doc isn't nearly good enough reason. -- Henrique Holschuh