Message-ID: <1459552801.5550.15.camel@free.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: fwserial: (coding style) Rewriting a call
 to a long function
From: Dominique van den Broeck <domdevlin@free.fr>
Reply-To: domdevlin@free.fr
To: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Shraddha Barke <shraddha.6596@gmail.com>,
        Radek Dostal <rd@radekdostal.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 01:20:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <56FEA410.50609@hurleysoftware.com>
References: <1459271662-14990-1-git-send-email-domdevlin@free.fr>
	 <1459271662-14990-3-git-send-email-domdevlin@free.fr>
	 <56FEA410.50609@hurleysoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1183
Lines: 33

Hello Peter,
Thanks a lot for your review and kind advice !

> I don't see a > 80-col line here?

In fact, it was not even a 80-col issue but a mis-aligned parenthesis
one. Realign the rows in this state would make them exceed the 80th
column.

I tend to agree with the fact that the way it currently is remains the
best one.

> And even if I did, this change would be super-ugly.
> The preferred way to reduce this is to fold it into a helper
> function

Actually, before I resend my patches, I have two or three small
questions:

1) My v1 patches already made it to staging and linux-next trees.
   Should I resend them anyway ?
2) Would it be helpful to people if I write a function the way you 
   specified it or would it be better to let it as is ?
3) If we don't, and then discard the last patch, shall I number « n/2 »
   or « n/3 » anyway ?

Forgive me if these questions are lame, I still have only a few
experience of the kernel tree. Documentation/SubmittingPatches states
that no one should be expected to refer to a previous set of patches,
so I suppose this would be « 1/2 » and « 2/2 » but I prefer being OK
about this from the beginning.

Thanks for caring.