Hello Peter, Thanks a lot for your review and kind advice ! > I don't see a > 80-col line here?
In fact, it was not even a 80-col issue but a mis-aligned parenthesis one. Realign the rows in this state would make them exceed the 80th column. I tend to agree with the fact that the way it currently is remains the best one. > And even if I did, this change would be super-ugly. > The preferred way to reduce this is to fold it into a helper > function Actually, before I resend my patches, I have two or three small questions: 1) My v1 patches already made it to staging and linux-next trees. Should I resend them anyway ? 2) Would it be helpful to people if I write a function the way you specified it or would it be better to let it as is ? 3) If we don't, and then discard the last patch, shall I number « n/2 » or « n/3 » anyway ? Forgive me if these questions are lame, I still have only a few experience of the kernel tree. Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that no one should be expected to refer to a previous set of patches, so I suppose this would be « 1/2 » and « 2/2 » but I prefer being OK about this from the beginning. Thanks for caring.
