From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752238AbdEJKwD (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2017 06:52:03 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:64683 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423AbdEJKwC (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2017 06:52:02 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,318,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="1146110925" Message-ID: <1494413508.30052.100.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Join string literals back From: Andy Shevchenko To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 13:51:48 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1494375875.1064702.971453736.29BB0B11@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20170509141721.15841-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170509141721.15841-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170509171040.GD19242@khazad-dum.debian.net> <1494351185.30052.94.camel@linux.intel.com> <1494375875.1064702.971453736.29BB0B11@webmail.messagingengine.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 21:24 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017, at 14:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 14:10 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh > > wrote: > > > > While here, print negative error without changing a sign as it > > > > is a > > > > common pattern in the kernel. > > > > > > A separate patch for this would be better: it would be easier to > > > actually check that no functional changes crept in by mistake. > > > > It doesn't make sense to me. It would touch same lines of code I do > > already here and it's only one place, see below. > > I had to go line-by-line looking for the darn thing, instead of just > compiling before-and-after and checking for an unchanged  object file. > > > > >   rc = fan_set_enable(); > > > >   if (rc < 0) { > > > > - pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling > > > > fan, > > > > " > > > > -        "will try again later...\n", -rc); > > > > + pr_err("fan watchdog: error %d while enabling > > > > fan, > > > > will try again later...\n", > > > > +        rc); > > Yeah. This one.  I don't have a problem with this change at all (I > acked > it), but it took some effort to find the nail in the hailstack. Okay, what I'm going to do is: 1) drop patch 1 for now; 2) split patch 2 into two patches (and append your Ack on both); 3) push to our testing branch (I can send v2 if we need one more round of review). Tell me if there is any objection. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy