On 09/12/2017 08:06 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, himanshi wrote: > >> Thanks for the review Daniel! I will change the imperative mood for the commit >> message once the other changes are finalised too and as suggested by Julia, >> would try to make the description specific than general. >> >> I tried to think of adding subsystem to the commit subject but could not >> conclude any because of the files involved. >> I like the idea of splitting the patch into 2 as you suggested but I >> have a doubt that adding the new MACROS to different sysfs files can be put into 1 >> patch with the subsystem you mentioned but changing the existing >> IIO_DEVICE_ATTR_NAMED to use IIO_ATTR_NAMED (sysfs file again) would be included >> in the second patch if I am not wrong. So would it be fine to keep the >> subsystem as iio for the second patch? > > Indeed, the kernel has to compile after every commit. Unless you change > the name of the macro, to allow the old and new versions to co-exist, it > seems hard to break up such a patch. We can still split things into two parts. One patch introducing __ATTR_NAMED in the device driver core and then another patch making use of that macro in the IIO subsystem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
