[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cd218be-0b0e-bf9c-e65a-1ba3dd57fc26@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:56:54 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Martyn Welch <martyn@...chs.me.uk>,
devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>
Cc: Aaron Sierra <asierra@...-inc.com>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <alessio.bogani@...ttra.eu>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@...il.com>,
Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] vme: tsi148: Improve 17 size determinations
>>>> @@ -2363,5 +2364,5 @@ static int tsi148_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>>>> master_num--;
>>>>
>>>> tsi148_device->flush_image =
>>>> - kmalloc(sizeof(struct vme_master_resource), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + kmalloc(sizeof(*tsi148_device->flush_image), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> This line is now a tiny bit too long
>>
>> Can you eventually tolerate a line length of 81 characters at such a source code place?
>>
>
> I think there's some irony here. On the one hand you are submitting
> patches that correct coding style issues, on the other you are asking
> whether we can ignore the coding style...
I test somehow how strict you would like to handle the length limit there.
I imagine that the affected source code formatting could also become different
if the involved variable name would be shorter.
>> * It seems that you would not like to perform such a tweak yourself.
>
> To be honest, it is quicker and easier in this instance to do just that.
Interesting …
> So that's now done.
Thanks that you picked some of my ideas up.
> Patches now in my testing branch:
>
> https://gitlab.collabora.com/martyn/linux/commits/vme-testing
I am curious on how the shown change possibilities will evolve from
this repository.
>> * Do you expect a resend for the complete patch series?
>>
>
> Unless the maintainer has commented that they have accepted patches x,
> y and z, then sending the entire series again is generally the right
> thing to do.
Would you like to respond further to Greg's comments (from 2017-08-26)
for this patch series?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists