Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: fwserial: (coding style) Rewriting a call to a long function

[Dominique van den Broeck <domdevlin@free.fr>]

Hello Peter,
Thanks a lot for your review and kind advice !

> I don't see a > 80-col line here?

In fact, it was not even a 80-col issue but a mis-aligned parenthesis
one. Realign the rows in this state would make them exceed the 80th
column.

I tend to agree with the fact that the way it currently is remains the
best one.

> And even if I did, this change would be super-ugly.
> The preferred way to reduce this is to fold it into a helper
> function

Actually, before I resend my patches, I have two or three small
questions:

1) My v1 patches already made it to staging and linux-next trees.
   Should I resend them anyway ?
2) Would it be helpful to people if I write a function the way you 
   specified it or would it be better to let it as is ?
3) If we don't, and then discard the last patch, shall I number « n/2 »
   or « n/3 » anyway ?

Forgive me if these questions are lame, I still have only a few
experience of the kernel tree. Documentation/SubmittingPatches states
that no one should be expected to refer to a previous set of patches,
so I suppose this would be « 1/2 » and « 2/2 » but I prefer being OK
about this from the beginning.

Thanks for caring.