From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757496AbcB1MqN (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:46:13 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f66.google.com ([209.85.215.66]:34226 "EHLO mail-lf0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757046AbcB1MqK (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:46:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:46:15 +0100 From: Johan Hovold To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Mork Cc: Mathieu OTHACEHE , johan@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] USB: serial: mos7840: move constants to right Message-ID: <20160228124615.GD10265@localhost> References: <1454175887-16158-1-git-send-email-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <1454175887-16158-12-git-send-email-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <87zivltovx.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20160201115706.GA13635@gmail.com> <871t8wa9o2.fsf@nemi.mork.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <871t8wa9o2.fsf@nemi.mork.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:37:33PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Mathieu OTHACEHE writes: > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > > >> I feel I'm missing something here, so I have to ask the stupid question: > >> What could possibly be the benefit here? Is it faster? Safer? Easier > >> to read? > > > > I don't think it will be faster or safer, maybe easier to read. But the point is to remove the > > warnings produced by the file scripts/coccinelle/misc/compare_const_fl.cocci when > > running make coccicheck. > > Making a tool happy is never going to be a valid reason for anything. > If it were, then you would not be necessary... Agreed. > Luckily you still are. Your task is adding some intelligence to the > output of the script. That means that you should look at the output and > describe how it improves the code in a way that makes me understand it. > And I can be pretty slow :) > > If you can't do that, then there is a high probability that the script > didn't improve anything. Looking through some of these (resent) chunks now, it's clear that some arguable do not even improve readability. I'll try to go through them and only pick the ones that do. Thanks, Johan