On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:28 PM Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
> > > ACPI helpers returned -1 in case of failure. Convert these functions to
> > > return appropriate error codes, and convert their users to propagate
> > > these error codes accordingly.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > - int val;
> > > + int val, err;
> > > unsigned long int end_jiffies;
> >
> > Perhaps in this and other similar cases switch to reversed xmas tree
> > order at the same time?
> > [...]
>
> Thanks for the review; I intentionally tried to make as few modifications
> as possible in order to achieve what I wanted. I deemed it better to
> place all "coding style"-related changes in their own patch (19).
>
> I would prefer to keep it this way. Do you have any objections?
Yes I have. What you are doing is called ping-pong patch series style,
which means it introduces / doesn't fix the (side) problem in the code
it provides.
It has no difference in this patch where to place a line which you have changed.
+ int val, err;
unsigned long int end_jiffies;
is the same as
unsigned long int end_jiffies;
+ int val, err;
I don't understand what "few modifications" you mentioned above?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
