I am not going to “verify” your update suggestion by my evolving approaches around the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) at the moment.
As you are sending patches as Markus Elfring
I am contributing also some update suggestions.
I would expect you take Coccinelle's suggestion into account
The proposed change is based on a semantic patch script which I developed with the support of other well-known Linux contributors.
and actually try to understand code before sending patch.
I concentrated my understanding on the concrete transformation pattern in this use case.
That suggestion may lead to actual bug in code which your patch just leaves unnoticed as it is not apparent from the patch itself
There can be other change possibilities left over as usual.
(no, not talking about this very patch it all started with)
Thanks for your distinction.
That said, I'm considering Markus Elfring being a human.
Thanks for this view.
If you do not like reactions to your patches
I am looking for constructive responses. - Disagreements can trigger special communication challenges.
or are interested only in improving tool that generates them,
How do you think about to look at any more background information?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/
it would be better to just setup a "tip bot for Markus Elfring" and let it send patches automatically.
There is already an other automatic source code analysis system active. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/scr...
The way you are sending patches makes impression (at least to me), that you spent some time on fixing issue Coccinelle found
Yes. - This view is appropriate.
and not just shut the warning up.
Additional improvement possibilities can be taken into account after corresponding software development discussions, can't they?
Regards, Markus