Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] soundwire: fix style issues

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 08:38:01AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 4/30/19 3:51 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 15-04-19, 08:09, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/Kconfig          |   2 +-
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/bus.c            |  87 ++++++++--------
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/bus.h            |  16 +--
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c       |   4 +-
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.c |  87 ++++++++--------
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h |  22 ++--
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/intel.c          |  87 ++++++++--------
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/intel.h          |   4 +-
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c     |  12 +--
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/mipi_disco.c     | 116 +++++++++++----------
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/slave.c          |  10 +-
> > > > >    drivers/soundwire/stream.c         | 161 +++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > 
> > > > I would prefer this to be a patch per module. It doesnt help to have a
> > > > single patch for all the files!
> > > > 
> > > > It would be great to have cleanup done per logical group, for example
> > > > typos in a patch, aligns in another etc...
> > > 
> > > You've got to be kidding. I've never seen people ask for this sort of
> > > detail.
> > 
> > Nope this is the way it should be. A patch is patch and which
> > should do one thing! Even if it is a cleanup one.
> > 
> > I dislike a patch which touches everything, core, modules, so please
> > split up. As a said in review it takes guesswork to find why a change
> > was done, was it whitespace fix, indentation or not, so please split up
> > based on type of fixes.
> 
> With all due respect, you are not helping here but rather slowing things
> down. I've done dozens of cleanups in the ALSA tree and I didn't go in this
> sort of details. The fact that the series was tagged as Reviewed by Takashi
> on April 11 and we are still discussing trivial changes tells me the
> integration model is broken. It's not just me, the patches related to
> runtime-pm from your own Linaro colleagues posted on March 28 went nowhere
> either.

My patch-bot would reject a patch that tried to do multiple types of
different cleanups on the same file(s).  Has done so for _years_, this
is not a new thing.

Remember, maintainer/reviewer time is scarce, engineer time is prolific,
we optimize for reviewers, not the people writing the patches.

thanks,

greg k-h