From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754993AbcGLPHd (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:07:33 -0400 Received: from ec2-52-27-115-49.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com ([52.27.115.49]:46382 "EHLO s-opensource.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754678AbcGLPHc (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:07:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: s5p-mfc Fix misspelled error message and checkpatch errors To: Javier Martinez Canillas , kyungmin.park@samsung.com, k.debski@samsung.com, jtp.park@samsung.com, mchehab@kernel.org References: <1468276740-1591-1-git-send-email-shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> <8dd68d9b-9455-d593-dc0f-c269c778b961@osg.samsung.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan From: Shuah Khan Message-ID: <578507B2.9020501@osg.samsung.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:07:30 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8dd68d9b-9455-d593-dc0f-c269c778b961@osg.samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/12/2016 09:03 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Shuah, > > On 07/11/2016 06:39 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> Fix misspelled error message and existing checkpatch errors in the >> error message conditional. >> >> WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 24) >> if (ctx->state != MFCINST_HEAD_PARSED && >> [...] >> + mfc_err("Can not get crop information\n"); >> >> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan >> --- > > Patch looks good to me. Maybe is better to split the message and checkpatch > changes in two different patches. But I don't have a strong opinion on this: > > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > Thanks for the review. I considered splitting them, however the patch that fixes the message will be flagged by checkpatch. It does make sense to split the changes into two patches. What I could do is, make the checkpatch fixes the first patch and fix the error message in the second one. How does that sound? -- Shuah