Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 06 Mar 2021 09:24:58 +0100 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 mips/linux.git] firmware: bcm47xx_nvram: refactor finding & reading NVRAM |
| |
On 2021-03-06 09:00, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 12:56:55PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> On 05.03.2021 12:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:16 AM Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> wrote: >> > > On 05.03.2021 10:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:55 AM Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. Use meaningful variable names (e.g. "flash_start", "res_size" instead >> > > > > of e.g. "iobase", "end") >> > > > > 2. Always operate on "offset" instead of mix of start, end, size, etc. >> > > > >> > > > "instead of a mix" >> > > > >> > > > > 3. Add helper checking for NVRAM to avoid duplicating code >> > > > > 4. Use "found" variable instead of goto >> > > > > 5. Use simpler checking of offsets and sizes (2 nested loops with >> > > > > trivial check instead of extra function) >> > > > >> > > > This could be a series of trivial patches, why did you choose to make a mixed >> > > > bag harder to review? >> > > >> > > It's a subjective thing and often a matter of maintainer taste. I can >> > > say that after contributing to various Linux subsystems. If you split a >> > > similar patch for MTD subsystem you'll get complains about making >> > > changes too small & too hard to review (sic!). >> > >> > Fine. MTD subsystem developers are probably smarter than I'm :) >> > >> > > This isn't a bomb really: 63 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) >> > >> > Too many changes at once for my brain stack doesn't mean others are >> > willing to review it. But to me that means each time I'll have to pass over >> > it while bisecting or reviewing git history I'll suffer the same overflow. >> > Anyway, matter of taste as you said. >> >> If I hear another voice for splitting this change into smaller patches >> I'm 100% happy to do so. Honestly! >> >> I just don't know if by splitting I won't annoy other people by making >> changes too small. >> >> Please speak up! :) > > please split it. IMHO the current is patch is hard to review, because > of the > different changes mixed together.
Will do, thank you for comments Philippe, Thomas!
| |