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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56FF0469.7000400@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:29:45 -0700
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	domdevlin@...e.fr
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

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