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

[SF Markus Elfring]

> 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.


> 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