Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:34:38 +0900
From:   Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>
Cc:     linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marin Jerabek <martin.jerabek01@...il.com>,
        Ondrej Ille <ondrej.ille@...il.com>,
        Jiri Novak <jnovak@....cvut.cz>,
        Jaroslav Beran <jara.beran@...il.com>,
        Petr Porazil <porazil@...ron.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Carsten Emde <c.emde@...dl.org>,
        Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7@...il.com>,
        Matej Vasilevski <matej.vasilevski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] can: ctucanfd: remove PCI module debug parameters
 and core debug statements

On Mon. 25 Apr 2022 at 17:10, Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz> wrote:
> Hello Vincent,
>
> On Monday 25 of April 2022 09:48:51 Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> > On Mon. 25 Apr. 2022 at 14:11, Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz> wrote:
> > > This and remove of inline keyword from the local static functions
> > > should make happy all checks in actual versions of the both checkpatch.pl
> > > and patchwork tools.
> >
> > The title and the description say two different things.
> >
> > When looking at the code, it just seemed that you squashed
> > together two different patches: one to remove the inlines and one
> > to remove the debug. I guess you should split it again.
>
> if you or somebody else confirms that the three lines change
> worth separate patch I regenerate the series.

I was just troubled that the title was saying "remove debug" and
that the body was saying "remove inline". I genuinely thought
that you inadvertently squashed two different patches
together.

I just expect the body of the patch to give extended explanations
of what is in the title, not to introduce something else, and
this regardless of the number of lines being changed.

> The changes are not based on third party patches but only
> on indications reported by static analysis tools.
> Remove of inline in the local static functions probably
> does not even change code generation by current compiler
> generation. Removed debug outputs are under local ifdef
> disabled by default, so only real change is step down from
> option to use module parameter to check for possible
> broken MSI causing the problems on PCIe CTU CAN FD integration.
> So I thought that single relatively small cleanup patch is
> less load to maintainers.
>
> But I have no strong preference there and will do as confirmed.
>
> By the way, what is preference for CC, should the series
> be sent to  linux-kernel and netdev or it is preferred for these
> local changes to send it only to linux-can to not load others?
> Same for CC to David Miller.

I used to include them in the past because of
get_maitainer.pl. But Oliver pointed out that it is not
necessary. Now, I just sent it to linux-can and Marc (and maybe
some driver maintainers when relevant).

> Best wishes,
>
>                 Pavel
> --
>                 Pavel Pisa
>     phone:      +420 603531357
>     e-mail:     pisa@....felk.cvut.cz
>     Department of Control Engineering FEE CVUT
>     Karlovo namesti 13, 121 35, Prague 2
>     university: http://control.fel.cvut.cz/
>     personal:   http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~pisa
>     projects:   https://www.openhub.net/accounts/ppisa
>     CAN related:http://canbus.pages.fel.cvut.cz/
>     Open Technologies Research Education and Exchange Services
>     https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/otrees/org/-/wikis/home
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists