Re: [PATCH v3] staging: greybus: merge split lines

Khadija Kamran
2023-03-27T21:00:33Z

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:17:22AM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 03:26:22PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:35:42AM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:21:35PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:26:33PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > > > > If condition and spin_unlock_...() call is split into two lines, merge
> > > > > them to form a single line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: Deepak R Varma drv@mailo.com
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > - Removing tab to fix line length results in a new checkpatch warning,
> > > > > so let the fix length be as it is.
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Rephrased he subject and description
> > > > > - Merged if_condition() and spin_unlock...() into one line
> > > > > - Link to patch:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/ZAusnKYVTGvO5zoi@khadija-virtual-machine/
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to first patch:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/ZAtkW6g6DwPg%2FpDp@khadija-virtual-machine/
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c | 6 ++----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > > > > index fcbd5f71eff2..6890710afdfc 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/arche-platform.c
> > > > > @@ -176,12 +176,10 @@ static irqreturn_t arche_platform_wd_irq(int irq, void *devid)
> > > > > * Check we are not in middle of irq thread
> > > > > * already
> > > > > */
> > > > > - if (arche_pdata->wake_detect_state !=
> > > > > - WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_START) {
> > > > > + if (arche_pdata->wake_detect_state != WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_START) {
> > > > > arche_platform_set_wake_detect_state(arche_pdata,
> > > > > WD_STATE_COLDBOOT_TRIG);
> > > > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock,
> > > > > - flags);
> > > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock, flags);
> > > > > return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey Outreachy Mentors,
> > > >
> > > > Kindly take a look at this patch and let me know if it is okay to work
> > > > on this file or should I look for other cleanup patches.
> > >
> > > Hi Khadija,
> > >
> > > I thought you were abandoning *this* patch, and doing a refactor on
> > > the function. I'd expect that would be a new patch, probably a
> > > patchset. One where you align the work based on the 'rising' and
> > > 'falling' detection,
> >
> > Hey Alison,
> >
> > Can you please elaborate that what do you mean by aligning on the basis
> > of rising and falling detection. Are you perhaps saying that I should
> > group the rising detection and group the falling detection separately?
> >
> > > and perhaps a second patch that centralizes
> > > the unlock and return.
> >
> > To do this I should make the use of goto statement, right?
> >
> > So the next patchset should be:
> > Patch 1: merge split lines
> > Patch 2: align on the basis of rising and falling detection
> > Patch 3: use goto statement to centralize unlock and return
> >
> > Kindly guide me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Khadija
>
> Hi,
>
> Glad you are picking this back up!
> I know Ira sent you some links to refactoring info. Go back and
> look at those.
>
> When we submit patches that refactor a function, we try to make
> the patches obviously correct and easy to review.
>
> I'll tell you how I approached this one, and you can see how
> it works for you:
>
> 1. Edit the function until it is just how you'd like it. Hint:
> no lines over 80, minimal indentation.
>
> {
> --snip--
>
> if (!gpiod_get_value(arche_pdata->wake_detect))
> goto falling;
>
> /* wake/detect rising */
>
>
>
> falling:
> /* wake/detect falling */
>
>
> out:
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arche_pdata->wake_lock, flags);
>
> return rc;
> }
>
>
> 2. Figure out how you can present that in patches. This function
> is just long enough that I think you have to split it up into
> two or more obvious steps, rather than throwing it into one
> patch.
>
> How about you do Step 1, and send the diff to the Outreachy mailing
> list (only) for review. Please start a new thread.
>

Hey Alison,

I am sorry about sending a new patch instead of sending a diff for
discussion. I realize that I did not read your message carefully and
misunderstood its contents.

Let me start a new thread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards,
Khadija

> Alison
>
> >
> > >
> > > Is there some other concern with working on this file?
> > >
> > > Alison
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your time.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Khadija
> > > >
> > > >