On 04/01/2016 04:20 PM, Dominique van den Broeck wrote: > Hello Peter, > Thanks a lot for your review and kind advice ! > >> I don't see a > 80-col line here? > > In fact, it was not even a 80-col issue but a mis-aligned parenthesis > one. Realign the rows in this state would make them exceed the 80th > column.
Ah, ok. Wasn't clear from the commit message. > I tend to agree with the fact that the way it currently is remains the > best one. Ok. >> And even if I did, this change would be super-ugly. >> The preferred way to reduce this is to fold it into a helper >> function > > Actually, before I resend my patches, I have two or three small > questions: > > 1) My v1 patches already made it to staging and linux-next trees. > Should I resend them anyway ? No, I didn't know they were already in staging-next. Nevermind then :) > 2) Would it be helpful to people if I write a function the way you > specified it or would it be better to let it as is ? As is, please. > 3) If we don't, and then discard the last patch, shall I number « n/2 » > or « n/3 » anyway ? n/a now. > Forgive me if these questions are lame, I still have only a few > experience of the kernel tree. Your questions are not lame; no need to apologize. > Documentation/SubmittingPatches states > that no one should be expected to refer to a previous set of patches, > so I suppose this would be « 1/2 » and « 2/2 » but I prefer being OK > about this from the beginning. If you would have sent the patches, yes, they would have been 1/2 and 2/2. What I do there is send the v2 series in-reply-to the original 1/2 patch. > Thanks for caring. Regards, Peter Hurley
