On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:30:51PM +0100, Michał Kępień wrote: ...
> > > First of all, this patch raises a couple of checkpatch warnings. > > > > The code on the whole reads well so I would be happy with it as is. Making > > it (and the existing code) fully compliant with checkpatch results in harder > > to read code - at least that was the consensus when it was initially merged, > > which is why it was left in the current state. Darren may have an > > alternative view on this though, in which case I'm happy to defer to his > > preference. > > Thanks for the explanation. It's just something that crossed my mind. > > Darren, feel free to let me know if you would like to get this done. I primarily care about Errors getting fixed, Warnings we take on a case by case basis, but err on the side of legibility. In the case of a driver with an active maintainer like Johnathan, I also weigh their input heavily. I haven't applied it yet, so if I see something particularly concerning, I'll raise it at that point. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center
