Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> Additional improvement possibilities can be taken into account
>> after corresponding software development discussions, can't they?
> 
> Sure, but that is in contrary to all you replies.

Where do you see a contradiction in this case?


> I guess you are familiar with Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst chapter 8.

I hope so in principle.


> No matter that patch was generated or suggested by a tool, you sent
> it and normal review procedure follows.

This is generally fine.


> And here you ignored _all_ suggestions

I did not integrate a few of them for my commit message so far
because it seems that there are open issues for further clarification.

Do you want that I send a second approach for this software module
before your own evolving update suggestion?


> and concentrate solely on improving Coccinelle scripts.

I hope not.


> On kernel related lists suggestions to patch itself are discussed.

This is usual.


> Whenever you take them into account while developing Coccinelle
> is up to you (on the Cocci list).

This is also happening, isn't it?

Regards,
Markus