[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <578507B2.9020501@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:07:30 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
kyungmin.park@...sung.com, k.debski@...sung.com,
jtp.park@...sung.com, mchehab@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: s5p-mfc Fix misspelled error message and
checkpatch errors
On 07/12/2016 09:03 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Shuah,
>
> On 07/11/2016 06:39 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> Fix misspelled error message and existing checkpatch errors in the
>> error message conditional.
>>
>> WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 24)
>> if (ctx->state != MFCINST_HEAD_PARSED &&
>> [...]
>> + mfc_err("Can not get crop information\n");
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
>> ---
>
> Patch looks good to me. Maybe is better to split the message and checkpatch
> changes in two different patches. But I don't have a strong opinion on this:
>
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
>
Thanks for the review. I considered splitting them, however the patch
that fixes the message will be flagged by checkpatch. It does make
sense to split the changes into two patches. What I could do is, make
the checkpatch fixes the first patch and fix the error message in the
second one.
How does that sound?
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists