> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 12:48 PM > To: Linyu Yuan (QUIC) <quic_linyyuan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: make f_loopback/f_sourcesink standalone > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 04:20:32AM +0000, Linyu Yuan (QUIC) wrote: > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 12:10 PM > > > To: Linyu Yuan (QUIC) <quic_linyyuan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: make f_loopback/f_sourcesink > standalone > > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:21:34AM +0800, Linyu Yuan wrote: > > > > First remove lb_modinit() and lb_modexit() call from f_sourcesink as > both > > > > function belong to f_loopback.c, also there is no need to export > > > > disable_endpoints() from f_sourcesink, change it to static type. > > > > > > > > After first step, we can use DECLARE_USB_FUNCTION_INIT() macro in > > > > f_sourcesink to create module init/exit function implicit as it only > > > > register/unregister one usb function driver. > > > > > > > > In f_loopback disable_loopback() function, just add two > usb_ep_disable() > > > > call, it will safe to remove original disable_endpoints() call > > > > which belong to f_sourcesink, and it also safe to use macro > > > > DECLARE_USB_FUNCTION_INIT() for module init/exit purpose. > > > > > > > > Now it is safe to remove function prototype of lb_modinit(), > > > > lb_modexit() and disable_endpoints() from g_zero.h. > > > > > > > > Change Makefile to build f_loopback/f_sourcesink as standalone > module. > > > > > > This describes a lot of what you are doing, but not why you want to do > > > any of this. > > > > > > Please read the kernel documentation for how to write a good kernel > > > changelog, as-is, I do not understand why this change should be accepted > > > at all. > > > > Can you share more about it ? is it description reason or code change itself ? > > Here's the relevant text from my patch bot, which I should have > triggered for this submission, that explains it a lot better: > > ----------- > > - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or > possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the > section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, > Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to > properly describe the change. > > - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg, > and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read > the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, > Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should > look like. > > --------------- > > Does that help? Got it, Or not I think I made some cray thing that you said "I do not understand why this change should be accepted at all" > > greg k-h
