linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: iio: accel: Remove unnecessary comments and add suitable suffix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:16:05 +0530
From:   Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, lars@...afoo.de,
        Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, 21cnbao@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pmeerw@...erw.net, knaack.h@....de,
        jic23@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: iio: accel: Remove unnecessary comments and
 add suitable suffix

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:57:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:05:22PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > But these should be done when we have *more* instances.
> > 
> > For eg: 
> > I added a tab space in function static int adis16201_read_raw() argument
> > to match open parentheses in this patch. But I also added tabs while
> > removing and adding suitable suffix to the macros. So, should it also be
> > done in a separate patch ?
> 
> If you're changing a line of code and you fix a white space issue on
> that same line, then that's fine.  If it's just in the same function,
> then do it in a separate patch.  In other words, adding tabs when you're
> moving around macros is fine, but adding it to the arguments is
> unrelated.

I will try and divide my patches next time :)

> This patch was honestly pretty tricky to review.

I am sorry for that. Might be easy for IIO reviewers ;)

> Jonathan assumes reviewers have the datasheet in front of them and I
> assume that that they don't.  He's probably right...  But especially
> comments like this:
> 
> 		*val2 = 220000; /* 1.22 mV */

They are pretty obvious as you can see from the return statements
just below that which is :

		return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;

These comments are obvious because we know 'val1' will be responsible
for Integer part(1.0) and 'val2' for the Micro part(220000 * 10^-6 = 0.22).
Isn't it ?

Although I am new to IIO please correct if I'm wrong.

-- 
Thanks
Himanshu Jha