This structure is only stored in the ops field of a snd_soc_dai_driver
structure. That field is declared const, so snd_soc_dai_ops structures
that have this property can be declared as const also.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
index 8cfffa7..806d399 100644
--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
+++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dai_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd,
return 0;
}
-static struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
+static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
.hw_params = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_params,
.hw_free = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_free,
.trigger = fsl_asrc_dai_trigger,
--
2.5.0
Gustavo,
please stop posting in this style. It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.
If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread. git-send-email does it right.
I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.
thanks,
Takashi
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:23:51 +0200,
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> This structure is only stored in the ops field of a snd_soc_dai_driver
> structure. That field is declared const, so snd_soc_dai_ops structures
> that have this property can be declared as const also.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
> index 8cfffa7..806d399 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
> @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dai_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
> +static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
> .hw_params = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_params,
> .hw_free = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_free,
> .trigger = fsl_asrc_dai_trigger,
> --
> 2.5.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
>
Hi Takashi,
Quoting Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>:
> Gustavo,
>
> please stop posting in this style. It's really annoying to see
> spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
> long.
>
> If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
> set in a shot with a thread. git-send-email does it right.
>
I will do that.
Thanks for the suggestion.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
> I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
> the limit.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:23:51 +0200,
> Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> This structure is only stored in the ops field of a snd_soc_dai_driver
>> structure. That field is declared const, so snd_soc_dai_ops structures
>> that have this property can be declared as const also.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
>> index 8cfffa7..806d399 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
>> @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dai_trigger(struct
>> snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
>> +static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
>> .hw_params = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_params,
>> .hw_free = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_free,
>> .trigger = fsl_asrc_dai_trigger,
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alsa-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
>>
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> please stop posting in this style. It's really annoying to see
> spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
> long.
> If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
> set in a shot with a thread. git-send-email does it right.
> I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
> the limit.
Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
large patch series without context).
Hi Mark,
Quoting Mark Brown <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
>> please stop posting in this style. It's really annoying to see
>> spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
>> long.
>
>> If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
>> set in a shot with a thread. git-send-email does it right.
>
>> I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
>> the limit.
>
> Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
> not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
> single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
> sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
> large patch series without context).
I like this idea better. I will do so next time. :)
Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:18 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Quoting Mark Brown <[email protected]>:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > > please stop posting in this style. It's really annoying to see
> > > spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
> > > long.
> > > If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
> > > set in a shot with a thread. git-send-email does it right.
> > > I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
> > > the limit.
> >
> > Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
> > not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
> > single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
> > sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
> > large patch series without context).
>
> I like this idea better. I will do so next time. :)
I don't it's better.
It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.
Hi Joe,
Quoting Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:18 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Quoting Mark Brown <[email protected]>:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> >
>> > > please stop posting in this style. It's really annoying to see
>> > > spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
>> > > long.
>> > > If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
>> > > set in a shot with a thread. git-send-email does it right.
>> > > I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
>> > > the limit.
>> >
>> > Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
>> > not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
>> > single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
>> > sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
>> > large patch series without context).
>>
>> I like this idea better. I will do so next time. :)
>
> I don't it's better.
>
> It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
> to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
> patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
> send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.
I ended up following your suggestions:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/13/739 (Notice that these are new
patches. Not related to the ones I previously sent)
Much appreciated
Thanks!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> I don't it's better.
> It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
> to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
> patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
> send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.
With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
of them.
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 12:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > I don't it's better.
> > It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
> > to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
> > patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
> > send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.
>
> With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
> the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
> pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
> of them.
I agree and that's what I wrote.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:08:21AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 12:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > I don't it's better.
> > > It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
> > > to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
> > > patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
> > > send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.
> > With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
> > the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
> > pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
> > of them.
> I agree and that's what I wrote.
The set of people who should have sight of the patches is wider than
just the maintainers.
Hi Mark, Joe,
On 07/14/2017 06:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:08:21AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 12:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> I don't it's better.
>>>> It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
>>>> to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
>>>> patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
>>>> send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.
>>> With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
>>> the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
>>> pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
>>> of them.
>> I agree and that's what I wrote.
> The set of people who should have sight of the patches is wider than
> just the maintainers.
I'm running get_maintainer.pl in the following way in order to get all
the supporters, maintainers and lists:
$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nokeywords --nogit --nogit-fallback <file>
Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva