On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:29:07AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Dave Jones <s.dave.jo...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:56:00AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> > >> Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> writes: > >> > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 19:02 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> >> Code is 80 characters wide, and comments are /* */ never the ugly C++ > >> >> crap. > >> > > >> > You might look at the recent Linus Torvalds authored commit > >> > 5e467652ffef (?printk: re-organize log_output() to be more legible") > >> > which does both of those: c99 // comments and > 80 columns. > >> > > >> > Absolutes are for zealots. > >> > >> What Linus does in his code, is totally up to him. What I pull into the > >> driver that *I* maintain, is up to me. It is perfectly normal to expect > >> submitters to respect the coding style of the piece of code they are > >> trying to edit. > > > > Bullshit. It's perfectly normal to respect Linux coding style described in > > Documentation/CodingStyle. Now let's back to the topic, could you > > apply John's patch or you just wanna improve your driver is 100% bug free? > > First of all, I call for proper CodingStyle to be applied to my driver, > and I expect someone posting a patch to respect the codingstyle of the > driver in question. It is simple respect for the code. If you consider > that BS - that is on you! > > Second I am NOT applying that patch as I have stated repeatedly because > I am not convinced it is safe to do so and it changes the code flow for > one type of chip and not the rest. In addition it uses a broken approach > to doing chip specific changes. > > In short, the patch is broken! > > Jes
Jes is correct not to accept the patch. It is just a hack that in one particular situation gets around a problem with the driver. It doesn't do anything towards fixing the issue. Barry
