Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: unisys: Modify boolean assignment

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 02/17/16 13:03, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:59:49PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> On 02/10/16 03:54, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Janani Ravichandran wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 02:26:38 UTC-5, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>>       On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Janani Ravichandran wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>       > Boolean variables should be assigned true/false rather than
> >>>>       1/0.
> >>>>       > This patch makes such a correction.
> >>>>
> >>>>       A change like this should be made consistently, so it is a
> >>>>       little
> >>>>       surprising to see only one such change.  Is this the only place
> >>>>       where the
> >>>>       variable is initialized?  
> >>>>
> >>>> Within this file, this is the only instance of initialization of the
> >>>> variable where 1 is
> >>>>  used instead of true. All others use true/false. I sent this to resolve
> >>>> that
> >>>> inconsistency :)
> >>>>       If so, you could say that.  if not, then you
> >>>>       could explain that all of the other initialization places
> >>>>       already have
> >>>>       boolean values, in some way or another.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do I send a v2 explaining this?
> >>>
> >>> I think it could be helpful.
> >>
> >> You also need to CC the driver author, not just the outreachy list.
> > 
> > For the outreachy application process, the author doesn't need to be
> >  cc:ed, but they can be if the patch author wants to.
> 
> If the patches are dropped and not pushed upstream, please ignore CC's,
> sure. If they are meant to go upstream, the author must be CC'ed.
> 
> I for one find it really annoying and rude to have patches go into
> upstream for code I actively maintain, without being CC'ed on them.

That happens all the time, and is just the way things have always been
for kernel changes.  Maintainership isn't "absolute" ownership, you know
this :)

> I know Unisys is trying to fix up their code, and knowing conflicting
> patches are in flight saves work.

These should all be trivial to work around, and really, if they were
trying to fix up their code, they would have already resolved "trivial"
changes like this a long time ago.

thanks,

greg k-h