Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi:bt-bmc: Delete superfluous dev_warm()
 inbt_bmc_config_irq()
To:     minyard@acm.org
Cc:     arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
References: <20200414141951.19120-1-tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
 <20200414194455.GH3587@minyard.net>
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Message-ID: <feb8858d-9778-dffb-8eb3-6a1efa24bb74@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:28:57 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200414194455.GH3587@minyard.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Corey:

On 2020/4/15 3:44, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:19:51PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> The priority of dev_warm() is higher than dev_info(),so if the
>> function bt_bmc_probe() uses dev_info() to print error message,
>> the dev_warm() is redundant.Thus should be removed.
> Actually, this needs to be left in.  That error is not just a that irqs
> were not configured, that's an error that something else went wrong.

Oh ,It's my fault.

I had read the previous email with you again, and mistook it as that you 
agreed with my point of view. I feel humiliated now.

Thanks,

Tang Bin