Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > 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. I'm applying this CodingStyle fix to the tree. Better applying it sooner than later. 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
