From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f171.google.com (mail-pf1-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D0027701; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="kRoyrJag" Received: by mail-pf1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-694f75deb1aso1639937b3a.0; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697115827; x=1697720627; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=uIDdHfachdzSYdbMoayfgG9KGaQkVwpYZ7M9Wz17QLI=; b=kRoyrJagZPxbCSQNbajPIXEIgmGqK3uXZvHQODj3LvsItvpP6zTPeA89h1MKBsHkup iI/IdrktpYqj1GEEAZeNsPA98UfMdf9ltFNkiJowebDbYWMuBiWYmO8sW83+nANeAx0g dmeXQZbXWSYDWVrzKXMTrzTefGQ1y0jBKEm7o2Ec3VLl20XvfKduehq6KpU0h1RRic15 RrNLYPZxKz0Vk7BvJCH1XWVZqgrwqp7aFI6trf5ZmTcXV26vRcQkvMsjLoS9heZGiruJ /RXExoAFnRu5HpngCSVagPGUzlCxVEC2J/P0cRDWSXcd1JCbc83NJ462Y133fe/0bKiA bksQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697115827; x=1697720627; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uIDdHfachdzSYdbMoayfgG9KGaQkVwpYZ7M9Wz17QLI=; b=n2mh/6Q7FnIHAIB0soR5S56tbt+viLwBKBe0DJyeM8dkZYXBHqWz5kd7qkdeE7x9+3 NSsU4MwaX27Du32qBtIogOPQU/+JiezXRpZnhlD5G1rxApU6gFFBEPnik0lC/cZpd94u gWSJxWPOfb0bhih588atIl4N7KM79YxCJw3DcJZg/k4gYIqdX3MHd5dww6sG+EujcvS7 pmiHvisoEB3QtoCPx6EusNL/rOmMGUnj74cgb/02lHjESOkG7kFZ5A2P79+pWgGGaWyq 8UByFjqa29BQDj3wxWNgp7yPEMuLgPMAVsuriAqT6qIy2Hc5PP8QlEMpDZNwwtjnFJRa pTtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy00np7F0WBlVEovaEf2l7Zufy9GR5VKG3f6/oDWSqATL77A5Mr 1pob7GBi9yUiy1AKC7Myz7s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEUgLYHpBlq28D59kLvKyvlLaVPZA/uM46REBEA+C2L29sl0PSXTZXGTdkya46UNec+FfsCbg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:1456:b0:134:73f6:5832 with SMTP id a22-20020a056a20145600b0013473f65832mr34363741pzi.16.1697115826088; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Negi (2603-8000-b93d-20a0-2184-6fa4-0d39-1c6b.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:8000:b93d:20a0:2184:6fa4:d39:1c6b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y18-20020a637d12000000b0059d219cb359sm1606244pgc.9.2023.10.12.06.03.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:03:44 -0700 From: Soumya Negi To: Julia Lawall Cc: Dan Carpenter , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Micky Ching , outreachy@lists.linux.dev, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Parenthesize macro arguments Message-ID: <20231012130344.GB7107@Negi> References: <20231012050240.20378-1-soumya.negi97@gmail.com> <81d6e283-fd87-4fd6-964f-22cbf420cdaa@kadam.mountain> <20231012074837.GE16374@Negi> <20231012124920.GA7107@Negi> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231012124920.GA7107@Negi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Hi, On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:49:20AM -0700, Soumya Negi wrote: > Hi Julia, > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:51:27AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Soumya Negi wrote: > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > For these ones, the name is too generic. probably the right thing is > > > > to just get rid of them completely and call spin_lock/unlock_irq() > > > > directly. > > > > > > I understand that there should be 2 different patches, one for the > > > macro-to-function rewrites & one for replacing the scsi lock/unlock macros with > > > direct spinlock calls. But, should these be in a patchset(they are vaguely > > > related since the patches together would get rid of the checkpatch warnings)? > > > I'm not sure. > > > > Patch set, since they affect the same file. Otherwise, Greg doesn't know > > in what order to apply them. > > Thank you for explaining each point. I'm sending over the patch set for > review in a new email thread. My last patch in the set didn't go through. THe error message is "multiple In-Reply-To headers. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked." I used the --thread=shallow flag with git format-patch. Should I try resend the entire patch set again without the flag? Or is there any way to send the remaining patch by itself? Thanks, Soumya > - Soumya