Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging:panel: Rewrite for fixing synchronization issues

["Zoltan Kelemen" <zoltan.kelemen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 jun 2012 09:24 "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Gar...  Don't do this.  :/  Each bullet point here should be a
> separate patch.  Please break it apart and resend.

I understand a large patch is harder to audit than small incremental changes, but the patch was the result of a code rewrite, where I attempted to summarize the changes in large in the bulleted list. There isn't a one-to-one correspondence between a bullet and a change in the code. Breaking the rewrite into small pieces would not only be quite hard but to some extent even more confusing to audit since you risk to see the leaves instead of the tree.

> Do not create lock_pprt() and unlock_pprt() functions.  It doesn't
> save any lines of code.  It means that Sparse is unable check for

Good point. (The functions were a remnant from previous work-in-progress where they were used in common from process/softirq code, and used different lock calls depending on the context of the call).

Regards,
Zoltan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/