Hello, Allen. Thanks for the message. I see your point. Yes, I've seen a lot of cruel threads in mailing threads in lkml.org , so it's not my intention to argue about basic things like Coding Style. That's why I left most of the warnings discussable. While you a digging into the Patch 1/3, I'll do my best to fix the checkpatch warnings of the rest of the code. Regarding the last checkpatch error message, I need to spend some more time to find a way to set it free of the warnings. I hope I'll come up with something good, at least I'll give it a try. Otherwise I'll have to redesign the driver regmap subsystem.(
Regards, -Sergey On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:42:30AM -0400, Allen Hubbe <allen.hu...@emc.com> wrote: > From: Serge Semin > > Please, find the general patchset description in the cover letter of the > > first > > patchset (see the very first message in thread). > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Fix sparc64 compilation warning in drivers/ntb/hw/idt/ntb_hw_idt.c : > > warning: right shift count >= width of type > > - Fix sparc64 compilation warnings in drivers/ntb/test/ntb_mw_test.c : > > warning: right shift count >= width of type > > warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size > > Thanks for reacting to the test robot so quickly. Since nobody else has > responded yet, I would like to assure you that the patches are not being > ignored. Please be patient. The IDT driver will be a valuable contribution > to the ntb subsystem. I am working carefully through patch 1/3 first, since > it affects existing drivers and interface. > > A word of caution regarding your statement, "There are a some types of > checkpatch warnings I left unfixed." Coding style can be a touchy subject, > leading to some recent rants^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion on some of the same topics > that are included in that list of unfixed warnings. Be prepared to adhere to > the style guide, even if it is inconvenient and against your own logic, > because that is almost always the easier and more practical approach than > asking for changes or exceptions, and better for your mental health not to be > on the To: list of something like https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/8/625. > > "Of course all of these warnings are discussable, except the last one." Be > prepared, even if it will require significant changes to the code. For > really inconvenient changes, we can talk about other more readily acceptable > approaches to keep the code short and elegant, as is obviously your intent. > Please be patient with the review. >
