From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> >>>> 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. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
