From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756262AbbAaWvk (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:51:40 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:57278 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751814AbbAaWvg (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:51:36 -0500 Message-ID: <54CD5C6D.2040704@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:51:25 +0100 From: Lino Sanfilippo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SF Markus Elfring , "David S. Miller" , Jamal Hadi Salim , netdev@vger.kernel.org CC: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: One function call less in em_meta_change() after error detection References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54CD042E.6030606@users.sourceforge.net> <54CD115C.8070801@gmx.de> <54CD4D91.9080801@users.sourceforge.net> <54CD5404.1010004@gmx.de> <54CD5529.5060209@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <54CD5529.5060209@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:IBzVXoAdepl9UWwrZi7mXt+zYD2huFn0MYFQOY3SaO5/UAMcOCz oJ8JGU/XdrzKuq5KUPG5b1cq/sEOFA1vDJisIl0WTRWsCBm1r2+cB35s1g80yosycLwPgAb qitaILPKhX5iy0hl1BV7aSwiszSxPPlnJcv4kJR5nkBQGgY2v2gQl4TEu71uyERpjLkKGmh KuUuQPRTjxfYlFscCVTQg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 31.01.2015 23:20, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> I find that all these cases correspond to the current Linux coding >>> style documentation, doesn't it? >> >> Sure, I think it does. > > Thanks for your acknowledgement. > > >> But it was not coding style violation what I was reffering to. > > Do you suggest any fine-tuning for the affected documentation > so that I would tweak my update suggestion once more? > No I dont think that any documentation has to be adjusted. If you agree with me you should adjust the patch accordingly and resend it. Otherwise keep it as it is. Regards, Lino