Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup.

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>]

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