linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/15] leds: leds-gpio-register: Supply description for param 'id'

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:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:05:03 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] leds: leds-gpio-register: Supply description for
 param 'id'

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hey Lee,
> 
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:55:31AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 May 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:06:16AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > index b9187e71e0cf2..de3f12c2b80d7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-gpio-register.c
> > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > > >  /**
> > > >   * gpio_led_register_device - register a gpio-led device
> > > >   * @pdata: the platform data used for the new device
> > > > + * @id: platform ID
> > > >   *
> > > 
> > > Given that id is the first parameter and pdata the second I suggest to
> > > swap the order here and describe id first.
> > 
> > That's super picky.
> > 
> > I can do it as a follow-up patch if you *really* care about it.
> 
> I'd say introducing the one-line description for id now in the "wrong"
> location and then reordering as a followup is ridiculus. But having said
> that: I don't care at all.

It's only "wrong" according to you.

I see these presented in a different order to their counterparts all
the time.  I do however appreciate that it does make more sense and
is easier on the eye, which is why I am more than happy to rectify.

With regards to the follow-up scenario, it makes far less sense for an
already merged patch in a history tree to be reverted, or for history
to be unnecessarily re-written for something as trivial as this.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog