Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:03:55PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-07-31 02:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 09:59:10PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >> > Jiri, >> > >> > This is getting exhausting, seriously. >> > I posted the code you are commenting one two days ago so i dont have to >> > repost. >> >> And I commented on the "*u32 = *u32" thing. But you ignored it. Pardon >> me for mentioning that again now :/ >> > >You commented on *u32 assignment from *void which i fixed. I >intentionally selected the different assignment names to reflect >meaning. Had you commented earlier - although I would have found
Yep, I don't understand why the function arg cannot have the desired name right away. Also, I don't understand why you don't just have u32 instead of pointer as a local variable, if you really needed this local variable. Ok, I admit that ":)" is probably not intuitive comment. Will be more blunt next time. >it disagreable - I would have fixed that too. Jiri, you need to be >more tolerant so progress can be made at times. I don't think so. I believe that it is really important that code can be read nicely. If we don't do it, it will be just mess (like it is in lot of net/sched/ places). > >> >> > >> > On D. Ahern: I dont think we are disagreeing anymore on the need to >> > generalize the check. He is saying it should be a helper and I already >> > had the validation data; either works. I dont see the gapping need >> > to remove the validation data. >> >> DavidA? Your opinion. >> > >With DavidA(reading his response) - the issue is one of taste. >Again either approach is fine. You can call helpers for every user >or make them invoked behind the scenes. >Again - like all your comments on code taste which I addressed, I >would have made that change if the comment had come in earlier. I got >exhausted. Imagine how a newbie corporate guy wouldve felt after this. That's how it is.
