From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22541 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755685Ab0CQTmh (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:42:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA130A3.6060203@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:42:27 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Osciak CC: "'Aguirre, Sergio'" , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Marek Szyprowski , kyungmin.park@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] v4l: videobuf: code cleanup. References: <1268831061-307-1-git-send-email-p.osciak@samsung.com> <1268831061-307-2-git-send-email-p.osciak@samsung.com> <001001cac5dc$4407f690$cc17e3b0$%osciak@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <001001cac5dc$4407f690$cc17e3b0$%osciak@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Cheers, Mauro