From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f47.google.com (mail-ed1-f47.google.com [209.85.208.47]) (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 9094C3FC4 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:18:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f47.google.com with SMTP id q3so19288511edt.5 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:18:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/sbK6Gyku0pI2crTRLJKEIo3nSfX3xy0COK8b8AjyvI=; b=HvCxjYx5jExAgYRvyFHZWAdtux8k0u8JyFtCMZNYuDqN3XWjtOvL4HnBVa7jZqenR5 UrIJ7gVErGlkNzG4FLSyzoVpIsMcFTboQD9Ina7NaqnEjkG/IP6So6vi6cnSXcUJzBek EHe2lazYXYTNugfB6Ti+w8SWtUMummWgQbLKs0EYu4kJz5r78LpSGVjUx9StcVR3WOpU qdCraJrIdndx0hFenerjMWEq40UW1P8UyaC2f9v4RT61WabGhepThWlsWNZCKV3MEPQm G2XMBTeBtpXoXi/UaaSuLSpXwtj4hjGsEZlMrr4IWxhnVA0pX5aItJYwkJrYyPIh5Beb njSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/sbK6Gyku0pI2crTRLJKEIo3nSfX3xy0COK8b8AjyvI=; b=KkeYXoou2c4QSEhJIlkJyh1v8JZAMpi9Q93mFsVH4YzR2LgmPbCPhoLOkIJr1WX5/D k0li5yimtLpcUO/fDnp+UAhyZvLp6Azb40AhPkSkJlrnn/7O3vapeG00EVEP9co6d2Fd Np6LkQNupX1sEjL+qQmH7adoRuejh2qLnKcEcngowY0ptyijT6XKmm0ChSsAa3pHlOYf hyl6tlsZ42LzedzbudnKEVNjVmdGqeZaO7OW9win31BybxXj2C9dubZL8+ZpmqGzF3+S FXycD062fe9wcSRc1NiO7hBMKggjG6FMTiW5VE3Y+/mA8qp5/YtstjQBBFJv7x8THmqe EIKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kplUBH6bb7PK2eFYJhixxLEPMFTLgqP5yUrmHcEL/uokt52Uc NpbWd7b4RW01wQBQeYzLttM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGQLy3IoGt2RfEiNs8iExv2YYlSQEOTccADlEhuYNZT5i6aV/k/uGT/ked8e2B+i3J6rlIUA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:493:: with SMTP id k19mr19144049edv.386.1631618284842; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (host-79-43-5-131.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.43.5.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id la17sm4683629ejb.80.2021.09.14.04.18.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:18:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Larry Finger , Phillip Potter , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Straube , Pavel Skripkin Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/18] staging: r8188eu: hal: Clean up usbctrl_vendorreq() Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:18:01 +0200 Message-ID: <2067006.DYBlakG51R@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20210914092405.GB2088@kadam> References: <20210913181002.16651-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <20210913181002.16651-16-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> <20210914092405.GB2088@kadam> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:24:05 AM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:09:59PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > Clean up usbctrl_vendorreq () in usb_ops_linux.c because some > > of its code will be reused in this series. This cleanup is in > > preparation for shortening the call chains of rtw_read{8,16,32}() > > and rtw_write{8,16,32,N}(). More insights about the reasons why at > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5319192.FrU0QrjFp7@localhost.localdomain/ > > > > This commit message is quite bad. > > This patch has nothing to do with reusing the code or shortening call > chains. It has to do, in a certain sense. Let me explain please... Some days ago, David Laight made the review of "Shorten calls chain of rtw_write8/16/32/n()" version 3. In that patch he noticed some lines of usb_read() that I had created with the help of reusing some lines of the code of usbctrl_vendorreq() that is deleted in the same patch. He thought that they were clean-ups and renames and so he suggested to make those "clean-ups" in a separate patch. However they were _not_ renames or other clean-ups, because usb_read() was not touched in that patch and, above all, it was a new function. I am sure that when I write new functions I can use whatever name of variables I like, even if people may think I'm renaming the variables that were in a old function that now is deleted. Am I not permitted? However, because I also think that readability of the diffs matters, I decided to do some clean-up of the code I'm about to reuse in the new functions. It improves readability of the above-mentioned patch that is also the 18/18 of this series. That is the reason why I'm cleaning up a function that is going to be deleted in the last patch of the series. > Don't use a link like that in the commit message especially when it's a > link to an email you wrote. If it's someone else's email you can say, > something like "As points out in email . Blah > blah blah." That way you give credit to the other person but all the > information is in the commit message. I agree with you. I'll redo the commit message for in order to summarize in few lines why I'm doing clean-ups of functions that must be deleted in 18/18. The same for 16/18. I think that a short explanation like the one that I gave you above should suffice (much shorter, obviously). I hope that I've been clear now. Please let me know if you have more suggestions about this patch and the next (16/18). Regards, Fabio