Re: [PATCH next v2 1/3] ethtool: Implement ethtool_puts()

Re: [PATCH next v2 1/3] ethtool: Implement ethtool_puts()

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:09:59PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> Should I undo this? I want my patch against next since it's targeting
> some stuff in-flight over there. BUT, I also want ethtool_puts() to be
> directly below ethtool_sprintf() in the source code. What to do?

(removing everyone except the lists from CC, I don't want to go to email
arest because of spamming too many recipients)

What is the stuff in-flight in next that this is targeting?

And why would anything prevent you from putting ethtool_puts() directly
below ethtool_sprintf()?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] checkpatch: add ethtool_sprintf rules

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:24:54PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> There was some discussion here [1] but AFAICT I need to use EMACS
> or configure my vim in a very particular way to get the same formatting
> 
> But yeah, look around line 7000 -- lots of this pattern matching code is
> pretty hard to read. Not sure there's much to be done as far as readability
> is concerned.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/137a309b313cc8a295f3affc704f0da049f233aa.camel@perches.com/

Hard to read because of pattern matching is one thing, but your
indentation is unlike anything else in this file. There are inner curly
brackets which are less indented than the outer curly brackets. I cannot
read/review this, sorry, I hope somebody else can.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH next v2 1/3] ethtool: Implement ethtool_puts()

[Justin Stitt]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:25 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:09:59PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > Should I undo this? I want my patch against next since it's targeting
> > some stuff in-flight over there. BUT, I also want ethtool_puts() to be
> > directly below ethtool_sprintf() in the source code. What to do?
>
> (removing everyone except the lists from CC, I don't want to go to email
> arest because of spamming too many recipients)
>
> What is the stuff in-flight in next that this is targeting?
>
> And why would anything prevent you from putting ethtool_puts() directly
> below ethtool_sprintf()?

The in-flight stuff consists of patches I sent changing some strncpy() usage
to

ethtool_sprintf(&data, "%s", something[i].name);

We can see them here [1]. I went for this approach initially but then
discussion came up about introducing ethtool_puts() which now
made my patches (some accepted into next already) semi-outdated
and in need of another swap from sprintf->puts() -- hence this series.

As far as the rebase, I simply took my commits and placed them on
top of next/master and got merge conflicts when ethtool_puts()
was placed below ethtool_sprintf(). All I have to do is move the hunks
around but since I formatted the file it's appearing in the diff. v3 will
be a clean diff.


[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=dfb:ethtool_sprintf%20AND%20f:justinstitt

Thanks
Justin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel