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;
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:47:01 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     Kaitao Cheng <pilgrimtao@gmail.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] proc/fd: Remove unnecessary variable initialisations in
 seq_show()
Message-ID: <20200612184701.GI8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20200612160946.21187-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
 <7fdada40-370d-37b3-3aab-bfbedaa1804f@web.de>
 <20200612170033.GF8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <80794080-138f-d015-39df-36832e9ab5d4@web.de>
 <20200612170431.GG8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <cd8f10b2-ffbd-e10f-4921-82d75d1760f4@web.de>
 <20200612182811.GH8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <d3d13ca7-754d-cf52-8f2c-9b82b8cc301f@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d3d13ca7-754d-cf52-8f2c-9b82b8cc301f@web.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:43:41PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> The presented suggestions trigger different views by involved contributors.
> >
> > Most of the views I've heard are "Markus, go away".
> > Do you not hear these views?
> 
> I notice also this kind of feedback.
> The clarification is still evolving for these concerns and communication difficulties.
> 
> I suggest to take another look at published software development activities.

Do you collateral evolution in the twenty?

> I got also used to some communication styles.
> I am curious to find the differences out which hinder to achieve a better
> common understanding.

My quantum tunnelling eases the mind.

> > For example, instead of saying something weird about "collateral evolution"
> > you could say "I think there's a similar bug here".
> 
> * Why do you repeat this topic here?

* Can communication be achieved?
* Will you twice the program?

> >> How do you think about further function design alternatives?
> >
> > Could you repeat that in German?  I don't know what you mean.
> 
> I imagine that you could know affected software aspects better.

Murph had other ideas.