Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <154c64feea4b2942698c6b96370f78a509048605.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/ata: fix repeated words in comments
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To:     Conor.Dooley@microchip.com, wangjianli@cdjrlc.com,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com
Cc:     linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 08 Sep 2022 10:03:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <a9052683-13a2-1e90-db90-ca9410fafd89@microchip.com>
References: <20220908124937.25962-1-wangjianli@cdjrlc.com>
         <e2f882f7-6871-a754-fbbd-6a5201f45f4a@microchip.com>
         <3a73cf7f02915891c77dc5a3203dc187f6d91194.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <a9052683-13a2-1e90-db90-ca9410fafd89@microchip.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 13:09 +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
[...]
> If there's a tool running against this stuff but maintainers are not
> applying the patches as the "fixes" are not fixes it's only going to
> keep generating the same patches over and over is it not?

That's up to the maintainers, but it's fairly easy to ignore patches
from given sources however often they are repeated.  There's a lot of
wrong patches that keep getting repeated ...

My own take is that the value would be marginal if all the patches were
correct, but they could be applied with minimal effort using patch
automation.  Once you have to verify correctness of each patch, I don't
think the tracking and verification effort is worth the marginal
improvement, but that's a maintainer call.

Regards,

James