[PATCH v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

[PATCH v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

[Saiyam Doshi]

Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
i2c-qup driver.

Refer below links for more information.
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr
https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck

Changes in v2:
* Updated changelog as suggested by Markus Elfring.

v1:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1163043/

Saiyam Doshi (3):
  i2c: qup: remove explicit conversion to boolean
  i2c: qup: Remove dev_err() log after platform_get_irq*() failure
  i2c: qup: Use devm_platform_ioremap_resource helper

 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qup.c | 22 ++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

--
2.20.1

Re: [v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

[Markus Elfring]

> Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> i2c-qup driver.

* This wording contains a typo.

* I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
  source code quality concerns.


> Changes in …

Can such a prefix be omitted?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> > i2c-qup driver.
> 
> * This wording contains a typo.

Doesn't matter to me for a cover letter as long as we can understand it.

> * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
>   source code quality concerns.

Not needed. I understand what is going on here.

> > Changes in …
> 
> Can such a prefix be omitted?

Why? I think it makes sense?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

[Markus Elfring]

>> * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
>>   source code quality concerns.
>
> Not needed. I understand what is going on here.

I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of “ensurance”
after only a few source code places were adjusted.


>>> Changes in …
>>
>> Can such a prefix be omitted?
>
> Why? I think it makes sense?

Can the specification of a version identifier be occasionally
sufficient already?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [v2 0/3] Fix issues reported by Coccinelle

[Saiyam Doshi]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:14:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > Using cocciecheck to ensure there are no semantic issues in
> > > i2c-qup driver.
> > 
> > * This wording contains a typo.
> 
> Doesn't matter to me for a cover letter as long as we can understand it.
> 
> > * I would prefer to refer to a desired reduction of a few
> >   source code quality concerns.
> 
> Not needed. I understand what is going on here.

Markus - By "ensure", I mean there are no further cocciecheck issues at this
point in time. And further, what changed is covered in individual patch
changelog. So, I think this information is fine in cover.

> > Can such a prefix be omitted?
Can be, but I like to keep it.

Thanks for review.

-Saiyam