Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:61290 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752292AbcAEQXS (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:23:18 -0500 Subject: Re: rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in rsi_send_mgmt_pkt() To: Julian Calaby References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E169.4070704@users.sourceforge.net> <5687E203.1070404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104092857.GD5284@mwanda> <568A4CFF.8060600@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104114849.GH5284@mwanda> <568A668D.8090007@users.sourceforge.net> <568B7F06.1010500@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: Dan Carpenter , linux-wireless , netdev , Kalle Valo , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <568BEDE8.4010203@users.sourceforge.net> (sfid-20160105_172339_171256_211A053A) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:23:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Every time you send a set of patches, I suggested some updates for Linux source files since October 2014. > there are legitimate issues which people raise, There was usual feedback. > and every time they are discussed, The discussion results were mixed between acceptance and usual disagreement. > you assert that your patches improve things I guess that should be the default intention of every patch, shouldn't it? > and seem to ignore the concerns people raise. I hope not. - But I can imagine that you might understand some responses from contributors in this way. Are you waiting for another clarification on a specific issue? > I've seen this same pattern of discussion here with these patches, > with your patches to move labels into if statements, with the patches > you sent late June last year, your patches to remove conditions before > kfree() and friends, etc. It seems that communication difficulties come partly from the fact that I chose search patterns from static source code analysis so far which belong to an error category that gets a lower priority. > You need to change you attitude: just because you can see some benefit > from your patches doesn't mean others do and it doesn't mean that > they're willing to accept them. I understand your advice. Further update suggestions with higher importance might follow for various software areas in the future. Regards, Markus