Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 05:49:20 -0700
From:   Soumya Negi <soumya.negi97@gmail.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Micky Ching <micky_ching@realsil.com.cn>,
        outreachy@lists.linux.dev, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Parenthesize macro arguments
Message-ID: <20231012124920.GA7107@Negi>
References: <20231012050240.20378-1-soumya.negi97@gmail.com>
 <81d6e283-fd87-4fd6-964f-22cbf420cdaa@kadam.mountain>
 <20231012074837.GE16374@Negi>
 <a1556f74-83ef-d32-103d-6b0b0233473@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a1556f74-83ef-d32-103d-6b0b0233473@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

Hi Julia,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:51:27AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Soumya Negi wrote:
> 
> > Hi Dan,
> > > For these ones, the name is too generic.  probably the right thing is
> > > to just get rid of them completely and call spin_lock/unlock_irq()
> > > directly.
> >
> > I understand that there should be 2 different patches, one for the
> > macro-to-function rewrites & one for replacing the scsi lock/unlock macros with
> > direct spinlock calls. But, should these be in a patchset(they are vaguely
> > related since the patches together would get rid of the checkpatch warnings)?
> > I'm not sure.
> 
> Patch set, since they affect the same file.  Otherwise, Greg doesn't know
> in what order to apply them.

Thank you for explaining each point. I'm sending over the patch set for
review in a new email thread.

- Soumya

> julia