Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:38:23 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        lianzhi chang <changlianzhi@uniontech.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        jirislaby@kernel.org, 282827961@qq.com,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20] tty: Fix the keyboard led light display problem
Message-ID: <Ybe9T3XzRK9zX1Gx@google.com>
References: <20211213061244.13732-1-changlianzhi@uniontech.com>
 <Ybc5XPfd5f66L92i@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <97eb3c3f68042443aa71c10766f3bef364e8f90b.camel@perches.com>
 <Ybeh1VGMvL7DkG2I@google.com>
 <YbentBpPYZjz5Fu4@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YbentBpPYZjz5Fu4@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:06:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:41:09AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 04:41:24AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 14:15 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:12:44PM +0800, lianzhi chang wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > +	struct kbd_struct *kb = &kbd_table[console];
> > > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > > +	unsigned long flags;
> > > > 
> > > > Slightly better to read:
> > > > 
> > > > 	struct kbd_struct *kb = &kbd_table[console];
> > > > 	unsigned long flags;
> > > > 	int ret = 0;
> > > 
> > > I don't think so.  Why do you?
> > 
> > I wonder why we comment on cosmetics of a patch
> 
> > (and have the submitter rush to fix that)
> 
> Not sure where you got this from...

That is people's natural reaction.

> 
> > without considering if the proposed solution makes
> > sense in the first place?
> 
> ...but answering your question it's quite natural in open source mailing list
> that people give a comment regarding their area of expertise. One does for
> style another for the whole solution. I don't think anything is wrong with this
> approach, do you?

I think it depends. It is definitely fine when we are putting finishing
touches on a patch, or when there is little indication that the patch is
uncontroversial. In this case we are on iteration #20, with several
initial approaches to solving the problem have been rejected and the
latest one out of blue introduced a whole lot of new
functionality/public facing ABI, so I think waiting a bit to see if this
brand new approach is something that is viable would be prudent.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry