From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54189 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932711AbcLMOht (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:37:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:37:42 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Seraphime Kirkovski Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, jbacik@fb.com, clm@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Coding style fixes Message-ID: <20161213143742.GC12522@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <20161212141005.24071-1-kirkseraph@gmail.com> <20161212161156.GU12522@twin.jikos.cz> <20161212182846.sb5cshixre4qe3o4@roojbos.sk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20161212182846.sb5cshixre4qe3o4@roojbos.sk> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Seraphime Kirkovski wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 05:11:56PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > This type of change is more like a cleanup and you can find more > > instances where the type is applied to just one of the operands, while > > min_t/max_t would be better. Feel free to send a separate patch for > > that. > > Thanks for the feedback. I will try to do the sweep in the following > days. > > I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand. Should I resend the min/min_t > change of this patch in a separate patch ? Remove the hunk that changes min -> mit_t from this patch, send it in a separate patch with more changes of that kind. Thanks.