On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 05:49:52PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 03:41:42PM +0000, Kershner, David A wrote: > > Hey Greg, we think the code for visorbus is ready to be moved out > > of staging, can you review it to see if we have missed anything? > > I think your html email got rejected by the list :( > > > The files include: > > /drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/ > > /drivers/staging/unisys/include/visorchannel.h > > /drivers/staging/unisys/include/visorbus.h > > > > The directories staging/drivers/unisys/visornic, visorhba, and visorinput > > are not part of the review as well as the file > > drivers/staging/unisys/include/iochannel.h. > > > > We currently have 5 checkpatch.pl warnings that I know about: > > - 3 CHECKs in visorchannel that are due to a MACRO that gets passed a FIELD > > instead of just a variable > > - 2 WARNINGS dealing with char * becoming static const > > > > > > > > Dan Carpenter found some extra parenthesis errors that I will address as > > well as look through the code to fix, but I would like to ask for the review > > while we are working on that. > > Sure, I'll look at doing it in a week or so when I catch up with other > patches in my queue. > > Everyone else is also welcome to do review :) Well, don't everone jump in at once :( Anyway, drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/ looks good, after my one tiny patch I've just sent you. Feel free to send a patch moving it to drivers/visorbus now if you want to. Then the individual drivers can go into the different subsystem locations after they are reviewed by the different subsystem maintainers, but that can't happen until the core moves. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
