On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:51:38 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 09:25:39AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > Again, you must have a bit more say here... > > For example, you didn't write why this change is needed. > > You thought it obvious? No, readers don't know. > > > it is obvious from the patch - the code becomes much shorter and more > legible. It's not obvious unless you read the code changes. Not obvious whether it's a code refactoring without any functional change, etc. Such info can be well put in the patch description. > and someone who just reads the log/blame wouldn't care, > because it doesn't actually explain anything. but whatever. Someone already cared. See? > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 09:35:46AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 18:10:20 +0200, > > Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> > >> ... and also use more pre-defined constants on the way (some of which > >> required adjustment). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> > > > > Applied this one, but skipped the patch 2. > > > which is funny, because that commit message misses the obvious "why" > part as well - it just mentions an additional thing that is unique to > this patch. > > so to be consistent, you should reject both patches and wait for an > update. Right, it was enough for me to reply the same thing again, so I wanted just to reduce the pile of XXXX. I'd reject all at the next time :) > > BTW, it would be really better if we define some macro for the > > highlevel I/O definition. It's cumbersome to decode and check > > manually at review whether the conversion is correct, and it's > > error-prone. > > > yes, i considered that. > i also considered many more refactorings, and had to hold myself back - > there are enough nice-to-have patches in this series as-is. > i mean, 15 years ago it would have made sense to go crazy, but now the > hardware is a bit too obsolete to go much beyond what i actually need > for my project. i'm assuming some people outside the western sphere > are still using our scrap with linux, but we rarely hear from them, so > it's hard to know ... Yeah, that's a dilemma of maintaining the old legacy stuff. Takashi
