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;
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:18:45 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark O'Donovan <shiftee@posteo.net>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [1/2] nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only
Message-ID: <ZMf7BUH3ZD+GA7TA@kbusch-mbp>
References: <20230727134748.4163796-1-shiftee@posteo.net>
 <28d11fc5-743f-0810-8ab7-3fa2a3f98c65@web.de>
 <20230731135152.GA6016@lst.de>
 <d51771bc-32a6-7424-ba02-bcc8ab9bf3f8@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d51771bc-32a6-7424-ba02-bcc8ab9bf3f8@web.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 07:46:25PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Are imperative change descriptions still preferred?
> >
> > It doesn't fucking matter.
> 
> Do you exaggerate here?
> 
> If not:
> Does such a feedback really indicate that you would intentionally like to
> disagree with specific requirements from the Linux development documentation
> (for a discussed patch)?

The subject is already in the imperative voice, and there's really
nothing furthur to elaborate that would help justify this patch's
inclusion. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.