Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> To my mind there is a divide between the cost of making changes like this > as a result of initial review and that of doing it on existing code. I can follow this view. > I don't think this one is worth while for existing code. How do you think about once more to increase the usage of the

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> To my mind there is a divide between the cost of making changes like this > as a result of initial review and that of doing it on existing code. I can follow this view. > I don't think this one is worth while for existing code. How do you think about once more to increase the usage of the

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 25/09/16 16:17, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is >> that it could be better. > > Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities. > > Which tool is spitting it out? >>> >>> Are you looking for any

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 25/09/16 16:17, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is >> that it could be better. > > Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities. > > Which tool is spitting it out? >>> >>> Are you looking for any

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is > that it could be better. Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities. >>> Which tool is spitting it out? >> >> Are you looking for any special tool? > I was wondering how you identified these

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is > that it could be better. Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities. >>> Which tool is spitting it out? >> >> Are you looking for any special tool? > I was wondering how you identified these

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 25/09/16 14:00, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I'm not seeing this one in there. > > How much do you care about selection of appropriate identifiers in source > files? It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is that it could be better. > > >> Which tool is spitting it out?

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 25/09/16 14:00, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I'm not seeing this one in there. > > How much do you care about selection of appropriate identifiers in source > files? It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is that it could be better. > > >> Which tool is spitting it out?

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> I'm not seeing this one in there. How much do you care about selection of appropriate identifiers in source files? > Which tool is spitting it out? Are you looking for any special tool? > Or is the test yours? Which test do you mean? > Yeah, I saw the discussion / flame war that

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> I'm not seeing this one in there. How much do you care about selection of appropriate identifiers in source files? > Which tool is spitting it out? Are you looking for any special tool? > Or is the test yours? Which test do you mean? > Yeah, I saw the discussion / flame war that

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 24/09/16 20:21, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I'm not necessarily against this change which does perhaps clarify the code >> ever so slightly, > > Thanks for another bit of positive feedback. > > >> but I am interested to know where 'current Linux coding style convention' >> comes from? > >

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 24/09/16 20:21, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I'm not necessarily against this change which does perhaps clarify the code >> ever so slightly, > > Thanks for another bit of positive feedback. > > >> but I am interested to know where 'current Linux coding style convention' >> comes from? > >

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> I'm not necessarily against this change which does perhaps clarify the code > ever so slightly, Thanks for another bit of positive feedback. > but I am interested to know where 'current Linux coding style convention' > comes from? How often do you check the status of a document like

Re: iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

> I'm not necessarily against this change which does perhaps clarify the code > ever so slightly, Thanks for another bit of positive feedback. > but I am interested to know where 'current Linux coding style convention' > comes from? How often do you check the status of a document like

Re: [PATCH 2/7] iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 24/09/16 07:25, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:54:49 +0200 > > Adjust jump labels according to the current Linux coding style convention. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring I'm not

Re: [PATCH 2/7] iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

On 24/09/16 07:25, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:54:49 +0200 > > Adjust jump labels according to the current Linux coding style convention. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring I'm not necessarily against this change which does perhaps clarify the

[PATCH 2/7] iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

From: Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:54:49 +0200 Adjust jump labels according to the current Linux coding style convention. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring --- drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3

[PATCH 2/7] iio: Rename a jump label in iio_buffer_store_watermark()

From: Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:54:49 +0200 Adjust jump labels according to the current Linux coding style convention. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring --- drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git