Pawel Osciak wrote: >> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: >>> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. >> I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. >> >> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 >> >> But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community policies :) > > Hm, right... > I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a part of the > roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging with other > patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave the > decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, > so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then though. It is fine for me to send such patch in a series of changes. A pure CodingStyle patch is preferred if you're doing lots of changes, since it is very easy to review those changes. Yet, I generally hold pure CodingStyle changes to happen at the end of an rc cycle, to avoid conflicts with real patches, especially when the change is on a code that use to have lots of changes during a kernel cycle. In the specific case of videobuf, I prefer to merge any changes functional changes at the beginning of a -rc cycle, and after having several tested-by replies with different architectures and boards, as a trouble there will affect almost all drivers. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
