linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: fwserial: (coding style) Rewriting a call to a long function

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:	Sat, 02 Apr 2016 01:20:01 +0200
From:	Dominique van den Broeck <domdevlin@...e.fr>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Shraddha Barke <shraddha.6596@...il.com>,
	Radek Dostal <rd@...ekdostal.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: fwserial: (coding style) Rewriting a call
 to a long function

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.

I tend to agree with the fact that the way it currently is remains the
best one.

> 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 ?
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 ?
3) If we don't, and then discard the last patch, shall I number « n/2 »
   or « n/3 » anyway ?

Forgive me if these questions are lame, I still have only a few
experience of the kernel tree. 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.

Thanks for caring.