From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.cipherat.com (mail.cipherat.com [91.98.42.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB12341660 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.98.42.103 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777304806; cv=none; b=BGBq/ORAtOYoIUC325ZA+rU6xJnGncFraVOa9gGTydiZB7Q4UWQJFcgqSzDP2tIIRQKaQ9a0JxXSX3p7wiGmnbKzMqk5ajsep+eYT9zcZOXdq0g5w7I1/PaLAwT8RCHuGMaVFRcjg46NhS0Mfq4cZJm1XtOF2AUgfW7O3m0a+nk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777304806; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v+DU3O2euXF1l4XaVKPADlgmTc7yhQIf/A7MBRgox+A=; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:References:Date:Cc:To:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Subject; b=pFJSMRqhMBm9PNrn1DOMbQX7StpfxeI8xnfIMh1+eYtxnmqKHbsPNF05SUlR2UMn2J5wFWuP1hqT7Ew7NI7w3Uh2pOhWwJQKxI4kfvU2T5VrNjzunFFPL2I1AvyFpahMnhvtUbFCvE4kbVWjXqQmcHbwgaSxUKKj/sCUX4i6qSQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cipherat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cipherat.com; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=cipherat.com header.i=@cipherat.com header.b=x4xZi3BG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.98.42.103 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cipherat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cipherat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=cipherat.com header.i=@cipherat.com header.b="x4xZi3BG" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPA id 5159884E66; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 18:46:35 +0300 (+03) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cipherat.com; s=dkim; t=1777304796; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=Lnh2UhsAln2MiMPcc8hmGC0TEFz3VGeiLYXL/UReIno=; b=x4xZi3BGitzRNFz92zdmChdWVgcyXKqOSFcNKvaszTi7BPC74nsoah5MipVD7Wjsk53tbC RoiRotB1fhH6IK0AtXrpfAc96H29X11/utDM0rhBmhjqvzATCGo625MM3d+GLFAV6A7qzw qVCFfBTupO3tP5/GSVkRSE160a7MjkHbQpdkHZ+NTKyj+XTBU56H9RUG098NfFrsDxftcM 4eJyYyXiszAT6uFm04F+GNDywAxPdR16F7F8ap7cNUBg8W3tQEvE87g8tDJerfV0sqWb0g KsJCABu63vO/W9tPvUGfv04n0Zd2YXgLvVJ/Im1FMZQqXaXCpCydnQKFSRcxBOT90bpt0r PYaeNOTk48hGjsh8KqfL24KkHxL/hIpxC3FPa45WfuFyqEDtFrvmaWqkMUMt69K2+jTV6m Hy8VshLayA+TS69znGqhpYrTswMZiDrYNZCae/lCRWJHLJfrAwdVdZlBtqDj1o4/wnJb9Z vKAXEdNSU7RdmDNR60x83Sxr2+OsS/tEnPQRkNQIUwvgoGqNyE8JufLtfySEu1pCaAU8i2 XWhO3sleDq0ukl4WANRPjfDFZ14ITHfmKTiqwn2gEV5C/Kd8WkC4t+sLfvw2MCFxmgQS+b R6XTfWUAkdH4HIkN0OL4Z3ACr/lq/cPBfuNjseGoiQLlcZdB04Tdk= From: "Salman Alghamdi" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" References: <20260426225552.87114-1-me@cipherat.com> <20260426225552.87114-3-me@cipherat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 18:46:34 +0300 Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, luka.gejak@linux.dev, straube.linux@gmail.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Dan Carpenter" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5d82ba44-eba0-0d0d-4cdf-fe58a3e6cb75@cipherat.com> Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?= [PATCH v3 2/5] =?utf-8?q?staging=3A?= =?utf-8?q?_rtl8723bs=3A?==?utf-8?q?_rtw=5Fmlme=3A?= fix lines exceeding 100 columns User-Agent: SOGoMail 5.12.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: None On April 27, 2026 12:10 +03, Dan Carpenter wrote: > This patch is too big and too complicated. If you send a patch that > only adds newlines, then I have automated ways to review that but > when you're adding variables and change code to use min=5Ft() then > it's hard to review. The introduction of some variables was made in order to fix line length for certain function calls that has long named parameters. Should I separate long line fixes into two patches, one only for simple newlines and the other that introduces variables? > When you start doing things which are more complicated than > just adding newlines, then it gets controversial in ways you > don't expect. For example, we don't really use min=5Ft() these > days. I tried using min() first as Luka noted me, but checkpatch.pl warned to replace it with min=5Ft() instead. What is the preferred function to use in this case? Regards, Salman Alghamdi