Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Pawel Osciak wrote: Aguirre, Sergio wrote: > Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community policies :) >>> Hm, right... >>> I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a >>> part of the >>> roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging >>> with other >>> patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave >>> the >>> decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, >>> so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then >>> though. >> >> It is fine for me to send such patch in a series of changes. A pure >> CodingStyle patch >> is preferred if you're doing lots of changes, since it is very easy to >> review those >> changes. Yet, I generally hold pure CodingStyle changes to happen at the >> end of an >> rc cycle, to avoid conflicts with real patches, especially when the >> change is on a >> code that use to have lots of changes during a kernel cycle. >> >> In the specific case of videobuf, I prefer to merge any changes >> functional changes at the >> beginning of a -rc cycle, and after having several tested-by replies >> with different >> architectures and boards, as a trouble there will affect almost all >> drivers. > > I'm applying this CodingStyle fix to the tree. Better applying it sooner > than later. Hooray! If time permits then I'll start a series of refactoring patches this weekend. I also have similar cleanup patches in my queue for v4l1 drivers that need to be converted to v4l2. I'll post a pull request for that as well during the weekend. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Pawel Osciak wrote: >>> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. >>> I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. >>> >>> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 >>> >>> But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community >>> policies :) >> Hm, right... >> I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a part of >> the >> roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging with >> other >> patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave the >> decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, >> so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then >> though. > > It is fine for me to send such patch in a series of changes. A pure > CodingStyle patch > is preferred if you're doing lots of changes, since it is very easy to review > those > changes. Yet, I generally hold pure CodingStyle changes to happen at the end > of an > rc cycle, to avoid conflicts with real patches, especially when the change is > on a > code that use to have lots of changes during a kernel cycle. > > In the specific case of videobuf, I prefer to merge any changes functional > changes at the > beginning of a -rc cycle, and after having several tested-by replies with > different > architectures and boards, as a trouble there will affect almost all drivers. I'm applying this CodingStyle fix to the tree. Better applying it sooner than later. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Wednesday 17 March 2010 14:04:21 Pawel Osciak wrote: >> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pawel Osciak >> Reviewed-by: Kyungmin Park > > Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil > > It would be really nice if this can be merged soon. With all the work that > we want to do on videobuf it makes life easier if it is cleaned up first. > > I wonder if it is perhaps possible to get this merged for 2.6.34-rc2? > That way it will be easier to merge fixes there. Although I think that it > is unlikely that we will want to make any videobuf changes for 2.6.34. Videobuf changes for 2.6.34? Only if you catch a bug that affect the current drivers and after lots of testing. It seems very unlikely. I don't see any reason to send a pure cleanup patch outside the merge window. So, after review, I'll add it at v4l-dvb.git tree (so, a patch for 2.6.35). -- Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 14:04:21 Pawel Osciak wrote: > Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. > > Signed-off-by: Pawel Osciak > Reviewed-by: Kyungmin Park Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil It would be really nice if this can be merged soon. With all the work that we want to do on videobuf it makes life easier if it is cleaned up first. I wonder if it is perhaps possible to get this merged for 2.6.34-rc2? That way it will be easier to merge fixes there. Although I think that it is unlikely that we will want to make any videobuf changes for 2.6.34. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
Pawel Osciak wrote: >> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: >>> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. >> I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. >> >> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 >> >> But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community >> policies :) > > Hm, right... > I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a part of > the > roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging with > other > patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave the > decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, > so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then > though. It is fine for me to send such patch in a series of changes. A pure CodingStyle patch is preferred if you're doing lots of changes, since it is very easy to review those changes. Yet, I generally hold pure CodingStyle changes to happen at the end of an rc cycle, to avoid conflicts with real patches, especially when the change is on a code that use to have lots of changes during a kernel cycle. In the specific case of videobuf, I prefer to merge any changes functional changes at the beginning of a -rc cycle, and after having several tested-by replies with different architectures and boards, as a trouble there will affect almost all drivers. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: >> >> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: >> >>> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. >> >> >> >>I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. >> >> >> >>http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development- >> process/4.Coding#41 >> >> >> >>But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community >> >> policies :) >> > >> > Hm, right... >> > I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a >> part >> > of the >> > roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging >> > with other >> > patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave >> > the >> > decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, >> > so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then >> > though. > >It wasn't my intention to cancel your effort :) Please don't give up because >of my comment. > >> >> As I said, you give up way too easily. There are good reasons for doing a >> simple straightforward cleanup patch first before tackling all the more >> complex issues. Let's get this in first, then the future patches will only >> do the actual functional changes instead of them having to do codingstyle >> cleanups at the same time. I want to avoid that. > >Sounds reasonable. > >I wont say naything more about the topic. I think you guys have cleared it >enough for me :) Come on guys, I really do not give up that easily, I just went on with more important patches. I am just a very agreeable person, that's all :) Best regards -- Pawel Osciak Linux Platform Group Samsung Poland R&D Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
> -Original Message- > From: Hans Verkuil [mailto:hverk...@xs4all.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:29 AM > To: Pawel Osciak > Cc: Aguirre, Sergio; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Marek Szyprowski; > kyungmin.p...@samsung.com > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup. > > > >> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: > >>> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. > >> > >>I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. > >> > >>http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development- > process/4.Coding#41 > >> > >>But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community > >> policies :) > > > > Hm, right... > > I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a > part > > of the > > roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging > > with other > > patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave > > the > > decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, > > so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then > > though. It wasn't my intention to cancel your effort :) Please don't give up because of my comment. > > As I said, you give up way too easily. There are good reasons for doing a > simple straightforward cleanup patch first before tackling all the more > complex issues. Let's get this in first, then the future patches will only > do the actual functional changes instead of them having to do codingstyle > cleanups at the same time. I want to avoid that. Sounds reasonable. I wont say naything more about the topic. I think you guys have cleared it enough for me :) Regards, Sergio > > Regards, > > Hans > > -- > Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
> -Original Message- > From: Hans Verkuil [mailto:hverk...@xs4all.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:26 AM > To: Aguirre, Sergio > Cc: Pawel Osciak; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; m.szyprow...@samsung.com; > kyungmin.p...@samsung.com > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup. > > > > Hi, > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- > >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pawel Osciak > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:04 AM > >> To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org > >> Cc: p.osc...@samsung.com; m.szyprow...@samsung.com; > >> kyungmin.p...@samsung.com > >> Subject: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup. > >> > >> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. > > > > I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. > > > > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development- > process/4.Coding#41 > > > > But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community > > policies :) > > It is true that you shouldn't do this 'just to clean up code'. But in this > case we want to do a lot of work on the videobuf framework, and it helps a > lot if it is first brought up to date with the coding standards. > > It's just step one in a much longer process :-) Ok, understood. No problem with that at all... I just wanted clarification on this coding policy. :) Regards, Sergio > > Regards, > > Hans > > -- > Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
>> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: >>> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. >> >>I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. >> >>http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 >> >>But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community >> policies :) > > Hm, right... > I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a part > of the > roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging > with other > patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave > the > decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, > so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then > though. As I said, you give up way too easily. There are good reasons for doing a simple straightforward cleanup patch first before tackling all the more complex issues. Let's get this in first, then the future patches will only do the actual functional changes instead of them having to do codingstyle cleanups at the same time. I want to avoid that. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
> Hi, > >> -Original Message- >> From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pawel Osciak >> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:04 AM >> To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: p.osc...@samsung.com; m.szyprow...@samsung.com; >> kyungmin.p...@samsung.com >> Subject: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup. >> >> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. > > I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. > > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 > > But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community > policies :) It is true that you shouldn't do this 'just to clean up code'. But in this case we want to do a lot of work on the videobuf framework, and it helps a lot if it is first brought up to date with the coding standards. It's just step one in a much longer process :-) Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
> Aguirre, Sergio wrote: >> Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. > >I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. > >http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 > >But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community >policies :) Hm, right... I'm not an expert either, but it does seem reasonable. It was just a part of the roadmap we agreed on in Norway, so I simply went ahead with it. Merging with other patches would pollute them so I just posted it separately. I will leave the decision up to Mauro then. I have some more "normal" patches lined up, so please let me know. I'm guessing we are cancelling the clean-up then though. Best regards -- Pawel Osciak Linux Platform Group Samsung Poland R&D Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.
Hi, > -Original Message- > From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pawel Osciak > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:04 AM > To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org > Cc: p.osc...@samsung.com; m.szyprow...@samsung.com; > kyungmin.p...@samsung.com > Subject: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup. > > Make videobuf pass checkpatch; minor code cleanups. I thought this kind patches were frowned upon.. http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/development-process/4.Coding#41 But maybe it's acceptable in this case... I'm not an expert on community policies :) Regards, Sergio -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
