From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755170Ab1ECV3Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2011 17:29:16 -0400 Received: from mail.openrapids.net ([64.15.138.104]:47811 "EHLO blackscsi.openrapids.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754124Ab1ECV3P (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2011 17:29:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 17:29:14 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mark Brown , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFC patch 29/32] trace event asoc remove semicolons Message-ID: <20110503212914.GH32331@Krystal> References: <20110502211123.163877033@efficios.com> <20110502213216.050459585@efficios.com> <20110503132138.GL1762@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110503140647.GA29665@Krystal> <20110503141436.GB2893@sirena.org.uk> <20110503142407.GC2893@sirena.org.uk> <1304433287.25414.2396.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1304433287.25414.2396.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://www.efficios.com X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-2-686 (i686) X-Uptime: 17:28:58 up 161 days, 2:32, 5 users, load average: 0.05, 0.04, 0.01 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 15:24 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:14:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > OK, now I see patch 1 I understand why you're doing this. It should > > still be at least called out in the patch description if not actually > > split out into a separate patch (which would be ideal) - one of the > > things that really stands out in reviews is unrelated changes. > > I actually think there should have been two different patch sets. One > for the semi colon clean up, and the other to do the work for arrays. > The semi colon clean up is non-controversial as it is just a clean up > that does not affect the current code at all. > > But the added array preparation is not needed until we do the array > work, which deserves its own patch set. OK, I'll split those patches. Thanks, Mathieu > > -- Steve > > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com