From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753942Ab3LGIll (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Dec 2013 03:41:41 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com ([74.125.83.48]:33886 "EHLO mail-ee0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752967Ab3LGIlk (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Dec 2013 03:41:40 -0500 Message-ID: <52A2DF40.9070707@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 10:41:36 +0200 From: Ivajlo Dimitrov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" 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 References: <1385917660-2676-1-git-send-email-ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> <52A16932.8020909@gmail.com> <20131206151030.GA22559@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20131206151030.GA22559@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks, Ivo [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/1/113