From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755911Ab0JZByd (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:54:33 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:62494 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755372Ab0JZByc (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:54:32 -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=CMtcfcHOmrwV7mZe/VK2T70/UJUUbwkXA7bjHGxodV0p2oI6vOYzQ2KlfMAjDT2Zmf U1B+BzTROMXgP4U3GNGM9qUv+HcjimSHYhL00Yi0EnCe95AQBJaBT8uj2cvvuJDOnBXX AX2dVkZjhxnw8woxr/oiJBKwgHzFejHir1Gas= Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/29] memstick: mspro: add comments to few functions From: Maxim Levitsky To: Alex Dubov Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML In-Reply-To: <479817.96049.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <479817.96049.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:54:26 +0200 Message-ID: <1288058066.4024.108.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 08:18 -0700, Alex Dubov wrote: > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > From: Maxim Levitsky > > Subject: [PATCH 08/29] memstick: mspro: add comments to few functions > > To: "Alex Dubov" > > Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "LKML" , "Maxim Levitsky" > > Received: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:53 PM > > a comment before function is not only > > a good way > > to give some information to the reader, but > > it serves as a good anchor point for diff so that > > it doesn't produce a diff between different > > functions (sigh...) > > > > Comments of new functions belong to the patch which introduces these new > functions. And those functions (as I already said) belong to the patch > which introduces new functionality, using these functions, desirably, > one function at a time. You did read the patch didn't you? I added few comments to _existing_ functions something that code really needs. I also did explain why did I do that here, didn't I? It makes next patch cleaner, as diff doesn't attempt to create a diff between different functions. -- Best regards, Maxim Levitsky