From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933640AbXCZWhA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:37:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933648AbXCZWhA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:37:00 -0400 Received: from smtp111.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.210]:47957 "HELO smtp111.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933640AbXCZWg7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:36:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=mxdHZOaXqWM6R8kMIhHRBMHshKUAYtKbDCuzCUXpc8XiZPPuo7kIUoqwU56zhR6p8+Hw6fjDFBPSSLE9lg/z8dlMmtuYotqt1YLBhUJZLzTDB74uWxLsfVMD0kb5KiOe6T9qzlMkn7xJv5AL5iKz9AO/AtN5yFvD3DFimFAFdWM= ; X-YMail-OSG: cDl374cVM1nIjo1by2jJgs_YmUgI92GHNja38Nz245wTLbXdo6gKovJ8pUjP_zllI1FWMKQQQV0hpCqnXBeqtAYhSGos6uYTdF1ZFHN0uAEb0M_Sc._MjNFtbc1EgPX6RVm_xwRdRKbKPlA- From: David Brownell To: bryan.wu@analog.com Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin: spi driver cleanup and coding style fixing Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:36:56 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1174904080.32691.77.camel@roc-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1174904080.32691.77.camel@roc-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703261536.56689.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 26 March 2007 3:14 am, Wu, Bryan wrote: > Hi folks, > > This patch cleanup blackfin SPI driver code and fix some coding style > problems. Good, thanks. I'll forward the current state of my review, after I cross-check it against these two patches. That'll mean I need to re-start that review ... at that point it'd be better to start with a single clean patch. > -#ifdef DEBUG > -#define ASSERT(expr) \ > - if (!(expr)) { \ > - printk(KERN_DEBUG "assertion failed! %s[%d]: %s\n", \ > - __FUNCTION__, __LINE__, #expr); \ > - panic(KERN_DEBUG "%s", __FUNCTION__); \ > - } > -#else > -#define ASSERT(expr) > -#endif Yes, that was certainly in the "remove that" category. - Dave