I suspect you're over-thinking it. The maintainers appear to be reacting to the different types of style changes - "checkpatch cleanups" is an awfully broad commit message. I'd suggest breaking this patch (and any others like it) into two pieces; one with whitespace cleanups, and one with the "== NULL" fixes (and mentioning both by kind in the commit message, rather than just attributing to checkpatch). Then issue a v2 of the series, and see where you land. Of course, YMMV. :-) -- Mike Shuey On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Simmons, James A. <simmonsja@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 07:28:21PM -0400, James Simmons wrote: >>> With nidstring now having the latest fixes we can >>> now clean up all the remaining checkpatch errors >>> for nidstring.c. >> >>Please be specific as to exactly what you changed, and break it up into >>one-patch-per-thing. And no, "fix all checkpatch errors" is not "one >>thing" > > Hmm. This makes me think I might be going about this wrong. Instead of > doing style changes per file I should be doing one style change per subsystem > instead. Unless you prefer doing these style changes on per file base. Perhaps > for now I should focus on pushing the fixes that have cumulated and once > caught up then finished off the style issues. > _______________________________________________ > lustre-devel mailing list > lustre-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
