On 17.11.2024 21:49, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 7:26 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Please split these patches up per subsystem, and submit them
individually to the appropriate subsystems.
That is good advice, although if you and block are Ok with an Acked-by
(assuming a good v2), we could do that too.
Manas: I forgot to mention in the issue that this could be a good case
for a `checkpatch.pl` check (I added it now). It would be great if you
could add that in a different (and possibly independent) patch.
Of course, it is not a requirement, but it would be a nice opportunity
to contribute something extra related to this :)
On 17.11.2024 18:56, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 07:25:48PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 08:41:47PM +0530, Manas via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Manas <manas18244@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch replaces `Result<()>` with `Result`.
>
> Suggested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1128
> Signed-off-by: Manas <manas18244@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/phy/qt2025.rs | 2 +-
> rust/kernel/block/mq/gen_disk.rs | 2 +-
> rust/kernel/uaccess.rs | 2 +-
> rust/macros/lib.rs | 6 +++---
Please split these patches up per subsystem, and submit them
individually to the appropriate subsystems.
In addition, it would be good if the commit stated the rationale for
the change, rather than what the change is (which we can see from the
patch itself.)
Thanks Andrew, Rusell and Miguel for the feedback.
Russell: I will edit the commit message to say something like, use the
standard way of `Result<()>` which is `Result` and keep things consistent wrt
other parts of codebase.
Andrew, Miguel:
I can split it in the following subsystems:
rust: block:
rust: uaccess:
rust: macros:
net: phy: qt2025:
Should I do a patch series for first three, and put an individual patch for
qt2025?
Also, I can work on the checkpatch.pl after this.
--
Manas
