On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:48:06PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

quoted

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 “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
in tpm_…()”?

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.

quoted

Remove sentence about Coccinelle.

I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such
a kind of attribution.

quoted

That's all.

I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved.

quoted

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.

quoted

4/4: this a good commit message.

Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step
“[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”?

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[ref]

quoted

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

I've given clear enough instructions what to do with the commits. This
is the point where I stop caring about this mail thread. Thank you.

/Jarkko