From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B6CC433DF for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6375D20739 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730497AbgFONhn (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:37:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41072 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730145AbgFONhm (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:37:42 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D86AF31; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:37:40 +0200 From: Petr Mladek To: Jim Cromie Cc: jbaron@akamai.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/24] dyndbg: refactor parse_linerange out of ddebug_parse_query Message-ID: <20200615133740.GG31238@alley> References: <20200613155738.2249399-1-jim.cromie@gmail.com> <20200613155738.2249399-11-jim.cromie@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200613155738.2249399-11-jim.cromie@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat 2020-06-13 09:57:24, Jim Cromie wrote: > make the code-block reusable to later handle "file foo.c:101-200" etc. > This should be a 90%+ code-move, with minimal adaptations; reindent, > and scafolding. This sentence sounds like the author did some hidden microoptimizations and potentially broke the code. It made me nervous. But in fact, I do not see any real change except that the variable "first" does not longer need to be defined. So, it is just a code move. In this case, I usually write: This patch does not change the existing behavior. Best Regards, Petr