From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755459AbcDAX3u (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:29:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:36402 "EHLO mail-pf0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753633AbcDAX3t (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:29:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: fwserial: (coding style) Rewriting a call to a long function To: domdevlin@free.fr References: <1459271662-14990-1-git-send-email-domdevlin@free.fr> <1459271662-14990-3-git-send-email-domdevlin@free.fr> <56FEA410.50609@hurleysoftware.com> <1459552801.5550.15.camel@free.fr> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Shraddha Barke , Radek Dostal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Peter Hurley Message-ID: <56FF0469.7000400@hurleysoftware.com> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:29:45 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1459552801.5550.15.camel@free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/01/2016 04:20 PM, Dominique van den Broeck wrote: > Hello Peter, > Thanks a lot for your review and kind advice ! > >> I don't see a > 80-col line here? > > In fact, it was not even a 80-col issue but a mis-aligned parenthesis > one. Realign the rows in this state would make them exceed the 80th > column. Ah, ok. Wasn't clear from the commit message. > I tend to agree with the fact that the way it currently is remains the > best one. Ok. >> And even if I did, this change would be super-ugly. >> The preferred way to reduce this is to fold it into a helper >> function > > Actually, before I resend my patches, I have two or three small > questions: > > 1) My v1 patches already made it to staging and linux-next trees. > Should I resend them anyway ? No, I didn't know they were already in staging-next. Nevermind then :) > 2) Would it be helpful to people if I write a function the way you > specified it or would it be better to let it as is ? As is, please. > 3) If we don't, and then discard the last patch, shall I number « n/2 » > or « n/3 » anyway ? n/a now. > Forgive me if these questions are lame, I still have only a few > experience of the kernel tree. Your questions are not lame; no need to apologize. > Documentation/SubmittingPatches states > that no one should be expected to refer to a previous set of patches, > so I suppose this would be « 1/2 » and « 2/2 » but I prefer being OK > about this from the beginning. If you would have sent the patches, yes, they would have been 1/2 and 2/2. What I do there is send the v2 series in-reply-to the original 1/2 patch. > Thanks for caring. Regards, Peter Hurley