Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] staging: rtl8723bs: Add white spaces around binary operators

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:51:03PM +0100, Samuel Abraham wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 11:36 AM Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:35:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 10:22:44AM +0100, Samuel Abraham wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:20 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 12:54 AM Abraham Samuel Adekunle
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > -                                               psta->BA_starting_seqctrl[pattrib->priority & 0x0f] = (tx_seq+1)&0xfff;
> > > > > > +                                               psta->BA_starting_seqctrl[pattrib->priority & 0x0f] = (tx_seq + 1) & 0xfff;
> > > > >
> > > > > > -                                               psta->BA_starting_seqctrl[pattrib->priority & 0x0f] = (pattrib->seqnum+1)&0xfff;
> > > > > > +                                               psta->BA_starting_seqctrl[pattrib->priority & 0x0f] = (pattrib->seqnum + 1) & 0xfff;
> > > > >
> > > > > You mentioned Linux coding style, which also requires lines not to be
> > > > > so long. These lines are. That's why a few versions ago I suggested
> > > > > you to change these to be two lines each. I don't know how many times
> > > > > to repeat this (it's third one).
> > > >
> > > > Okay, sorry
> > > > I will add a third patch for a line break before the patch for %
> > > > operations since each patch should handle a single thing.
> > >
> > > I am not sure you need a third patch for that. It lies into category of space
> > > and indentation fix.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah.  Let's not go crazy.  Do the white space change as one patch.  The
> > rules are there to make reviewing easier.  Splitting it up into three
> > patches doesn't help anyone.
> 
> Okay thank you Dan. I have collapsed the spaces and linebreaks into one patch
> 
> >
> > In staging we say, "Fix one type of checkpatch warning at a time."
> > That's because it's a simple rule to explain and it stops people from
> > sending us huge patches that fix every checkpatch warning.  But this
> > patch is small and everything is related and it's easy to review.
> >
> Thank you very much for the clarity. I understand now.
> 
> I already asked Andy, but I would also like to seek your opinion on
> how I should version
> the next patch. I already made this current one v6. Do I send v7 with
> changes in the cover letter,

Yes.

> or changes in the individual patches?

Both?  Put yourself in Greg's shoes and do whatever is easiest for
Greg.

regards,
dan carpenter