From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754122Ab3LHHR2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2013 02:17:28 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41379 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751047Ab3LHHR0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Dec 2013 02:17:26 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 23:18:57 -0800 From: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" To: Ivajlo Dimitrov Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ivaylo Dimitrov , pavel@ucw.cz, pali.rohar@gmail.com, Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: TIDSPBRIDGE: Remove UUID helper Message-ID: <20131208071857.GA12104@kroah.com> References: <1385917660-2676-1-git-send-email-ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> <52A16932.8020909@gmail.com> <20131206151030.GA22559@kroah.com> <52A2DF40.9070707@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52A2DF40.9070707@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 10:41:36AM +0200, Ivajlo Dimitrov wrote: > > On 06.12.2013 17:10, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:05:38AM +0200, Ivajlo Dimitrov wrote: > >> Hi Greg, > >> > >> On 01.12.2013 19:07, Ivaylo DImitrov wrote: > >>> From: Ivaylo Dimitrov > >>> > >>> Custom uuid helper function is needed only in rmgr/dbdcd.c and doesn't > >>> need to be exported. It can also be made way simpler by using sscanf. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov > >>> --- > >>> drivers/staging/tidspbridge/Makefile | 2 +- > >>> drivers/staging/tidspbridge/gen/uuidutil.c | 85 -------------------- > >>> .../tidspbridge/include/dspbridge/uuidutil.h | 18 ---- > >>> drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/dbdcd.c | 42 +++++++++- > >>> 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-) > >>> delete mode 100644 drivers/staging/tidspbridge/gen/uuidutil.c > >>> > >> I guess the initial mail somehow didn't make it through your spam filter: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/1/70 > > It did, but I thought that people asked for it to be changed in the > > thread afterwards, so I was expecting an updated version from you. > > > > Care to fix things up and resend it? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Sure, the change I was asked for is trivial, but I didn't get the reason > why it is needed. Neither there is a reply to my follow-up comment [0]. > Sorry, I am pretty much new on LKML and could miss things that are > supposed to be clear from the start, but my impression is that when > someone says "it is better", he/she should explain why it is better or > at least what is wrong with the patch he/she wants to be changed. > > However, I don't want to enter some arguing loop, so if you think I > should change the code as per Joe's comment, just confirm it and I'll do it. Please try.