[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b116fc90-9558-8609-d803-7d8da2b66e0a@web.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:50:49 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mfd: asic3: One function call less in asic3_irq_probe()
>> I suggest to reduce a bit of duplicate source code also at this place.
>
> Duplicate code (logic) or just characters ?
Both.
> IMHO, readability is an important aspect, so we could be careful about that.
This is usual.
The code text size can influence this aspect in considerable ways.
>> We can have different opinions about the criteria which are relevant here.
>
> Which criterias are you operating on ?
I suggest occasionally again to reconsider consequences around a principle
like “Don't repeat yourself”.
> I think it's good that you're using tools like cocci for pointing out
> *possible* points of useful refactoring.
Thanks for your general understanding.
> But that doesn't mean that a particular patch can be accepted
> or not in the greater context.
Would you like to find the corresponding change acceptance out at all?
> Note that such issues are pretty subjective
The situation depends on some factors.
> - it's not a technical
I got an other impression.
> but an asthetic matter,
This matters also.
> so such issues can't be resolved by logic.
I guess that it can help.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists