From: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ide-cd: cleanup cdrom_decode_status
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:03:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9ea470500904030703k9285e0eye5487f825df77e6@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200904031241.44597.bzolnier@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
<bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 03 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:08:39AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > > - have (almost) equal handling of commands based solely on sense_key
>> >
>> > I'm having a VERY hard time trying to review this patch because at
>> > the same time that codepaths were merged if()s were replaced by switch()
>> > which in turn resulted in change of intendation... on top of that
>> > the patch description is very vague about this part of the changes...
>>
>> I completely and exactly understand what you are saying :), I thought so
>> too when I looked at the diffs yesterday. Well, if it's any consolation, the
>> patches've been tested so they seem to work :). Anyway, split version coming
>> up...
>
> The split version looks exactly the same except ide_cd_breathe() change
> when it comes to the main part.
>
> Did you send the wrong version by any chance?
No, but I can't split those changes anymore logically. The switch-case handles
the differentiation based on the sense_key and as such cannot be broken down
anymore without doing some weird stuff and possibly introducing more bugs and
breaking bisectability. Completely hypothetically: wouldn't a before-after
juxtaposition of the change make reviewing more easier, for example you
apply the patch on a different branch and compare the before and the after
version?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-03 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-02 6:58 Borislav Petkov
2009-04-02 23:08 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-04-03 4:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2009-04-03 10:41 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-04-03 14:03 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2009-04-03 19:39 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-04-04 9:40 ` Borislav Petkov
2009-04-04 12:00 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-04-04 12:17 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-04-03 7:58 Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9ea470500904030703k9285e0eye5487f825df77e6@mail.gmail.com \
--to=petkovbb@googlemail.com \
--cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=petkovbb@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®