> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
>
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:20:40 -0500 (CDT)
>> Mike Isely <isely@isely.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mauro:
>>>
>>> Please pull from
http://linuxtv.org/hg/~mcisely/pvrusb2 for:
>>>
>>> - pvrusb2: Handle USB ID 2040:2950 same as 2040:2900
>>> - pvrusb2: Add comment elaborating on direct use of swab32()
>>> - pvrusb2: Remove BKL
>>> - pvrusb2: Fail gracefully if an alien USB ID is used
>>> - pvrusb2: Implement crop support
>>> - pvrusb2: Mark crop window size change as being disruptive to the encoder
>>> - pvrusb2: Be able to programmatically retrieve a control's default value
>>> - pvrusb2: Implement default value retrieval in sysfs interface
>>> - pvrusb2: Implement cropping pass through
>>> - pvrusb2: Disable virtual IR device when not needed.
>>>
>>> pvrusb2-ctrl.c | 10
>>> pvrusb2-ctrl.h | 2
>>> pvrusb2-devattr.c | 2
>>> pvrusb2-hdw-internal.h | 11 -
>>> pvrusb2-hdw.c | 475 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>> pvrusb2-hdw.h | 13 +
>>> pvrusb2-i2c-chips-v4l2.c | 7
>>> pvrusb2-i2c-cmd-v4l2.c | 86 ++++++--
>>> pvrusb2-i2c-cmd-v4l2.h | 1
>>> pvrusb2-i2c-core.c | 38 ++-
>>> pvrusb2-sysfs.c | 24 ++
>>> pvrusb2-v4l2.c | 100 +++++++++
>>> 12 files changed, 669 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Please note that I marked the first change (the USB ID fix) as high
>>> priority; it is trivial and an obvious right thing to do.
>>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Please: don't do tricks like this to cheat with checkpatch.pl. The error is
>> there to point to a Coding Style violation.
>>
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + /* Keep checkpatch.pl quiet */
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> Except for those tricks, the patches looks sane to my eyes. Please fix and ask me to pull again.
>>
>
> Nope. Sorry. If I remove the "tricks", then the coding style
> violations will come back. You choose. I have said this again and
> again and again. Forcing this style:
>
> if (a)
> b;
>
> As opposed to the much safer
>
> if (a) {
> b;
> }
>
> is a huge mistake. Both generate the same code; the second form is
> robust against someone later inserting a printk (or some other crazy bit
> of debugging code). I flat out refuse to use the first form. I adopted
> this habit over 20 years ago for a good reason, and BS like this isn't
> going to change it. I will put up with the space-after-comma silliness.
> I will NOT put up with this.
>
> Those comments do NOT violate coding style. You cannot have it both
> ways. Either I remove the comments and restore the "violations" or the
> comments stand. That is it. No exceptions. I have had enough with
> this BS. No more.