Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

[David Miller]

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200

> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200
>>>>
>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements
>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how things work.
>>>>
>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you
>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted.
>>
>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it.
> 
> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report
> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and
> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its
> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real
> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this
> regression just can't be fixed already.

And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is
less work than making several postings such as this one.