On 09/03/2013 11:26 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

On 09/02/2013 07:53 PM, Chen Gang F T wrote:

quoted

Hello Guenter Roeck:


I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
please help confirm 2 things:

   Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in kernel and related sub-system mailing list ?

   and is the disccusion about h8300 between us also wastes and noisy in kernel mailing list ?

It raised my awareness of the status of h8300 maintenance,
so I would not see it as noise or waste. I might have suggested
a different target for your efforts, but that is your choice to make,
not mine.

OK, thank you for your confirmation, I plan to scan all architectures
one by one with allmodconfig.

Hmm... if suitable, next, when I focus one of architectures, I also cc
to you, if it can be removed, please let me know in time, so can avoid
sending waste mails to mailing list.

I plan to try one of architectures within arc, hexagon, and metag. I
will begin at 2013-09-20 (or later), if some (or all) of them can be
removed, please let me know, thanks.

On the code review side, I had suggested that you should not add new
ifdefs into code, much less unnecessary ones. Your counter-argument
was that you wanted to follow the existing coding style in the file
in question. To me, that argument is along the line of "the coding
style in this file is bad, let's do more of it".

Hmm... in fact, I will not say whether the code style is good or bad. I
mainly focus on to try to avoid multiple code styles within one file.

  extreme sample: let 'kernel code style' and 'gcc code style' in one file, that will make the code very ugly.

That doesn't make much sense to me, so I did not bother to respond.
Setting that aside, it is not up to me to approve or reject your patches.
Whoever does that would be the one you have to convince.

OK, I can understand, and now it seems it can be canceled, since h8300
has been removed.

Guenter

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang