On 02-05-19, 08:31, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:46:49AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 01-05-19, 10:57, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > No C++ comments in .h files > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/soundwire/bus.h | 4 ++-- > > > drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h | 4 ++-- > > > drivers/soundwire/intel.h | 4 ++-- > > > > As I said previously this touches subsystem header as well as driver > > headers which is not ideal. > > What? Who knows that? Who cares? Well at least Pierre knows that very well :) He is designate Reviewer of this subsystem. > This is doing "one logical thing" to all of the needed files. Your > split of "this is a driver" vs. "this is a subsystem" split is _VERY_ > arbritary. > > That's just too picky and assumes a subsystem-internal-knowledge much > deeper than anyone submitting a normal cleanup patch would ever know. Sure I do agree that this assumes internal knowledge but the contributor knows the subsystem extremely well and he knows the different parts. For drive by contributor I agree things would be not that picky :) Even considering the patch series, some split was even file based and in this case not done. All I ask is for consistency in the series proposed. > I think you have swung too far to the "too picky" side, you might want > to dial it back. Sure given that this is code cleanup I will split them up and push. Shouldn't take much of my time. Thanks for the advise. -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
