>> coccinelle, checkpatch, coverity, etc. … > It **really** doesn't makes any sense to send patch bombs like that!
I got an other impression for this software development aspect. > That pisses me off, as it requires a considerable amount of time from > my side that could be used handling important stuff... I can partly understand this view. > You're even doing the same logical change on the same driver several times, > like this one: > atmel-isc: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in > isc_formats_init() > atmel-isi: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in > two functions Such a change approach can occasionally occur because of my selection for a specific patch granularity. > Please, never do this again. I guess that it will happen more because there are so many results to consider from source code analysis. > Instead, group patches that do the same thing per subsystem. I was also uncertain about the acceptance for the suggested change patterns. > This time, I was nice and I took some time doing: > > $ quilt fold < `quilt next` && quilt delete `quilt next` > > In order to merge the same logic change altogether, applied to all > drivers at the subsystem. Thanks for your constructive information. > Next time, I'll just ignore the hole crap. Do you want a “development pause” from my queue of change possibilities? Regards, Markus
