[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DCSE8SBC2ZD1.Z7BOJYSEIELY@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 17:51:54 +0900
From: "Yeounsu Moon" <yyyynoom@...il.com>
To: "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: "Andrew Lunn" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub
Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dlink: handle copy_thresh allocation failure
On Sat Sep 13, 2025 at 5:39 AM KST, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> - skb_copy_to_linear_data (skb,
>> + skb_copy_to_linear_data(skb,
>> np->rx_skbuff[entry]->data,
>> pkt_len);
>> - skb_put (skb, pkt_len);
>> + skb_put(skb, pkt_len);
>
> Please don't include white space changes with other changes. It makes
> the patch harder to review.
>
> Andrew
Thank you for reviewing!
As you mentioned, it indeed becomes harder to see what the real changes
are. I have a few questions related to that:
1. If I remove the whitespace between the funciton name and the
parenthesis, `checkpatch.pl` will warn about it. Of course, I understand
that we don't need to follow such rules in a mindessly robotic way.
2. However, I also read in the netdev FAQ that cleanup-only patches are
discouraged. So I thought it would be better to include the cleanup
together with the patch. But I see your point, and I'll be more careful
not to send patches that cause such confusion in the future.
3. This is more of a personal curiosity: in that case, what would be the
proper way to handle cleanup patches?
Yeounsu Moon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists