On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 21:14 +0000, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 01:00:07PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > In the future, you might consider being more > > comprehensive with your patches. > > Wasn't sure about the scope of the style fixing > patches. I've been reading Kernel Newbies and > this looked like a good way to start > contributing. Good to know more exhaustive > changes are welcome. > > > > This code could be neatened a bit by: > > > > o using another set of logging macros > > o removing the unnecessary ftrace like logging > > o realigning arguments > > Great ideas. > Should this have been all included in one patch, > or each as part of a series with the previous > one? > Want to take the opportunity to learn about the > process. Hello again Luis. I think the suggestion I posted here is suitable for a single change. Ideally, you'd make individual patches each with a single "type" of change. There is a script I posted a while back that groups various checkpatch "types" together and makes it a bit easier to do cleanup style patches. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/11/794 But don't just use checkpatch as the sole decider of what's appropriate to fix or neaten. checkpatch is a stupid, brainless little script. So is the automation script that uses checkpatch. For instance, checkpatch would not have suggested creating and using another logging macro. Please use your own taste to best figure out what to fix and how. Using checkpatch to get familiar with kernel development is fine and all, but fixing actual defects and submitting new code is way more useful. cheers, welcome, Joe -- 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
