Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Wed Oct 18 17, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted.
>
> Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps
> with the subject âDelete an error message for a failed memory allocation
> in tpm_â()â?
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/
>
> I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information
> source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern.

Shouldn't this information source for the explanation be the
submitter? I'd hope they understand what it is they are submitting.

> > Remove sentence about Coccinelle.
>
> I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such
> a kind of attribution.
>
>
> > That's all.
>
> I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved.
>
>
> > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value.
>
> I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again.
> You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far.
>
>
> > 4/4: this a good commit message.
>
> Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step
> â[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detectionâ?
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give.
>
> I am curious on how this detail will evolve.
>
> Regards,
> Markus