Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH v2] staging: greybus: Convert uart.c from IDR to XArray

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:36:39PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:10:04AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > On 8/16/21 10:06 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:46:08AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > > > On 8/14/21 1:11 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > > > Convert greybus/uart.c from IDR to XArray. The abstract data type XArray
> > > > > > is more memory-efficient, parallelisable, and cache friendly. It takes
> > > > > > advantage of RCU to perform lookups without locking. Furthermore, IDR is
> > > > > > deprecated because XArray has a better (cleaner and more consistent) API.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I haven't verified the use of the new API (yet) but I have a few
> > > > > comments on your patch, below.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 					-Alex
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not sure I'm right about this...  But the actual change you're
> > > > > making has nothing to do with what the Intel test robot reported.
> > > > > I personally find the "Reported-by" here a little misleading, but
> > > > > maybe the "Link" line that gets added will provide explanation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anyway, unless someone else contradicts/corrects me, I'd rather
> > > > > not have the "Reported-by" here (despite wanting to provide much
> > > > > credit to <lkp@intel.com>...).
> > > > 
> > > > You are correct, "Reported-by:" does not make sense here.
> > > 
> > > There should be a Fixes-from: tag for bugs found in review (not style
> > > issues) but when I suggest it then people just say to use the
> > > Reported-by tag.
> > 
> > I think things caught during review aren't normally worthy
> > of specific mention in the commit message (though maybe in
> > the non-committed part under "---").  I mean, that's what
> > review is for.  And in the case of what <lkp@intel.com>
> > does, that's effectively a technical aspect of "review."
> 
> I'm not talking about stuff like intending or naming schemes, I'm

*indenting*...  *sigh*.

regards,
dan carpenter