From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3752C07E95 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 19:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E49B61CC1 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 19:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231378AbhGGTyt (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 15:54:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f46.google.com ([209.85.208.46]:46000 "EHLO mail-ed1-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230359AbhGGTyt (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 15:54:49 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f46.google.com with SMTP id t3so4952192edt.12; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=URduaW50lsVABZMTcWqniUjdimmoK+Mx3tzbD4O0S0c=; b=tp7LDq7q84kwrouqsTlh5IG8bskNwTRRGMlKD+B86oeVds6X8Rta0STLCkCzVP7rlH rZT/B696cba7p3B3lbQXTxopJY6V7EHKSxxIVm+q6V+KTXblUn++jjswea1nvYlWQiGg CEA57KAG+c+XPKUkJkiZFOJiDFMIfoO9nreVHeL3jE02sZMy/5mqI8FDI7xNQGOOWpDj V03tGmlM2M2NW9beIuMTsjriqHruAzzb8jn92HBLqvUd9c84W9pxvqfLT4NBm5PL+Bji 0LFPe1Z8LKBNwJq096yZnDseesKeC/XrjL8CI9kM1K947+2JrcuUmVHw6wMRnsXSmMTv cLaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306xeZqKoa8pZ0kdpzS4A4fnuIgOi0aJa+Esadwxp7+1u6+rn7c r46j6lzPrnAFUb4SOE92kts= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwczzpgZW/l6CYw6xMSEcrMRQzjEX1rXbOx0YnkNsKZDpnFuKYfvJLKK5FguvXS8xtQAKUuUQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:30af:: with SMTP id df15mr3080906edb.19.1625687527405; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocinante ([95.155.85.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f9sm24949edw.88.2021.07.07.12.52.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 07 Jul 2021 12:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 21:52:05 +0200 From: Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= To: Christophe JAILLET Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, robh@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: tegra: make const array err_msg static Message-ID: <20210707195205.GA6952@rocinante> References: <55b11e9a7fa2987fbc0869d68ae59888954d65e2.1620148539.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <5f3f35296b944b94546cc7d1e9cc6186484620d8.1620148539.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20210705223152.GA142312@rocinante> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org Hi Christophe, [...] > > These should be trivial to fix. The two pertaining to "quoted string > > split across lines" would be something that we might or might not decide > > to do anything about this - technically, as per the Linux kernel coding > > style [1], we ought to fix this... but, this particular case is not > > a terrible example, so I will leave this at your discretion. > > > > What do you think? > > Hi, > I don't think it worth it. > > Even for patch 2/3 about 'seq_printf' --> 'seq_puts' conversion, I'm not > fully convinced myself that is useful. I personally believe it's a good change. For a literal string without any formatting using the seq_printf() is much more involved for no reason, but aside of this small performance improvement, it also has some value in demonstrating the correct usage patterns - people spent more time reading kernel code and looking at how to do things and use things to base their work on, so setting some example is not a bad idea. Albeit, it's a matter of point of view too, I suppose. > Too trivial clean-ups only mess-up 'git blame' for no real added value. Yes, there is a fine line with these. > If you want these clean-ups, I can send a patch for it, but checkpatch > output need sometimes to be ignored on files already in the tree. At least, > this is my point of view. No worries! Thank you for giving it some thought! I appreciate it. :) Krzysztof