From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755209Ab0JZBVF (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:21:05 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:36538 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753733Ab0JZBVE (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:21:04 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=sy3dW+NA/dHh4Y912cwAqwXKxvx1hnho1RW1nrBI6gFZuQVOwnLH6cF6+CSrAD4svG BP7YGQ4x0ylIwFB3fOd5HSoyJiFGiV/RMap0pLZi55C8ZQszwMaXV+Qdi0Ya2Pt6R1Rk H8jw9pZKibvVNLW3uoGHDM48ze0KjlDHMGqgQ= Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/29] memstick: core: add new functions From: Maxim Levitsky To: Alex Dubov Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML In-Reply-To: <117301.25688.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <117301.25688.qm@web37608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:20:58 +0200 Message-ID: <1288056058.4024.39.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 07:56 -0700, Alex Dubov wrote: > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > From: Maxim Levitsky > > Subject: [PATCH 03/29] memstick: core: add new functions > > To: "Alex Dubov" > > Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "LKML" , "Maxim Levitsky" > > Received: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:53 PM > > Add a lot of support code that will > > be used later. > > > > You're adding here a lot of temporarily dead code, which, while being > useful, should be better added together with the actual driver > functionality. So what? What is wrong with that? Why should I mix things together? > > Besides this, the patch has a lot of unneeded clean-ups which are better > be set as a separate patch. What cleanups? So I added the memstick_power_off and make code use it If you want even that as separate patch, ok. And memstick_invalidate_reg_window in memstick_power_on? Again at any rate it will be invalid there. (Maybe I should have put that in memstick_power_off actually, will do) If you want me to put these changes in separate patches, ok, I do it. > > And it doesn't conform to the coding guideline either (4 byte indents, > instead of tab What? I checked the patch with checkpatch.pl. It didn't complain. I also use 8 byte tabs not 4. Will look at that, thanks. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky