On 08/02/2016 09:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:57:11PM +0800, Baole Ni wrote: >> I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value >> when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission. >> As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro, >> and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code, >> thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro. > > Please split these up and send them independently to the relevant > maintainers with sensible subject lines - a single 1000+ patch series is > far too large and you're CCing random people so it's hard to tell which > patches are relevant (for example the batch I'm replying to here are for > the input subsystem which I don't maintain so I'm not 100% sure why I'm > being copied here). > > With this sort of thing it's often best to send one series per directory > or something similar. > I would recommend just adding whatever script you used to find all of these to patchcheck or coccinelle, then let people familiar with each subsystem make and submit the fix-ups for each subsystem. You won't get 1000+ patches to your name, but the work still gets done and you avoid bothering a lot of people. (I got about several of these for files I've never touched :/) Thanks, Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
