How many times have I told you to include the reason for your patches in your proposed commit message?
Will it be useful to look again at the involved circumstances?
Too often.
Did I answer any concerns partly?
Many people do not know that a generic kmalloc does a dump_stack() on OOM.
Do you see a need to represent such information better?
Is it expected that the function “devm_kzalloc” has got a similar property?
That information should be part of the commit message.
How do you think about to share it also from any reference documentation in a clearer way?
Do we stumble on a target conflict in this case?
I am generally trying to improve the software situation to some degree. I prefer then to work with safe information sources. Unfortunately, I might have not reached a desired confidence level here for a more detailed commit message. I assume that software development efforts could increase in significant ways if something should be improved further in a direction I hope. But this could mean that time frames will grow for corresponding clarifications.
* Does such a situation block progress on the deletion of other remaining questionable error messages?
* Would you like to increase the software development attention anyhow?
By the way: It seems that my update suggestion for the directory “omapfb/dss” could be superseded by the patch “omapfb: dss: Do not duplicate features data” from Ladislav Michl. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10082027/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171129123308.GA26578@lenoch
Regards, Markus