Hi
2021. január 16., szombat 21:42 keltezéssel, Andy Shevchenko írta:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:28 PM Barnabás Pőcze 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 see what you mean, sorry, please ignore what I said, it has no
relevance here. I'll change the order here and take a look at the
other commits with this in mind.
> I don't understand what "few modifications" you mentioned above?
> [...]
In other commits there were instances where I could've made
similar changes, but I chose not to, because I wanted to keep
the "stylistic" and functional changes separate.
For example, in patch 9:
@@ -353,9 +353,11 @@ static ssize_t show_ideapad_cam(struct device *dev,
{
unsigned long result;
struct ideapad_private *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ int err;
I did not change the order. Is that OK or do you think it'd be
preferable to change the order here as well?
Thanks,
Barnabás Pőcze
