[PATCH] ASoC: fsl_asrc: constify snd_soc_dai_ops structure

This structure is only stored in the ops field of a snd_soc_dai_driver
structure. That field is declared const, so snd_soc_dai_ops structures
that have this property can be declared as const also.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <redacted>
---
 sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
index 8cfffa7..806d399 100644
--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
+++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c

@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dai_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
+static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
 	.hw_params    = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_params,
 	.hw_free      = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_free,
 	.trigger      = fsl_asrc_dai_trigger,

-- 
2.5.0

Gustavo,

please stop posting in this style.  It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.

If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread.  git-send-email does it right.

I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.


thanks,

Takashi

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:23:51 +0200,
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

Hi Takashi,

Quoting Takashi Iwai [off-list ref]:

Gustavo,

please stop posting in this style.  It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.

If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread.  git-send-email does it right.

I will do that.

Thanks for the suggestion.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.


thanks,

Takashi

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:23:51 +0200,
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

quoted

This structure is only stored in the ops field of a snd_soc_dai_driver
structure. That field is declared const, so snd_soc_dai_ops structures
that have this property can be declared as const also.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <redacted>
---
 sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
index 8cfffa7..806d399 100644
--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
+++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c

@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dai_trigger(struct  

snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd,
 	return 0;
 }

-static struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
+static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
 	.hw_params    = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_params,
 	.hw_free      = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_free,
 	.trigger      = fsl_asrc_dai_trigger,
--
2.5.0

_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

please stop posting in this style.  It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.

If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread.  git-send-email does it right.

I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.

Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
large patch series without context).  

Hi Mark,

Quoting Mark Brown [off-list ref]:

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

quoted

please stop posting in this style.  It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.

quoted

If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread.  git-send-email does it right.

quoted

I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.

Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
large patch series without context).

I like this idea better. I will do so next time. :)

Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:18 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

Hi Mark,

Quoting Mark Brown [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

quoted

please stop posting in this style.  It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.
If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread.  git-send-email does it right.
I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.

Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
large patch series without context).

I like this idea better. I will do so next time. :)

I don't it's better.

It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.

Hi Joe,

Quoting Joe Perches [off-list ref]:

On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:18 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

quoted

Hi Mark,

Quoting Mark Brown [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:41AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

quoted

please stop posting in this style.  It's really annoying to see
spontaneously popping-up almost same patch for more than two hours
long.
If you have a series of the same fix patches, send them as a patch
set in a shot with a thread.  git-send-email does it right.
I don't mind a couple of patches posted separately, but this is over
the limit.

Or at least just collect them up and send them all at one time even if
not as a single thread (you don't want to CC everyone affected by a
single patch in the set on everything, that's harder to avoid when
sending a series via git, but it can be confusing to get one item in a
large patch series without context).

I like this idea better. I will do so next time. :)

I don't it's better.

It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.

I ended up following your suggestions:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/13/739 (Notice that these are new  
patches. Not related to the ones I previously sent)

Much appreciated
Thanks!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

I don't it's better.

It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.

With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
of them.

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 12:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

I don't it's better.
It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.

With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
of them.

I agree and that's what I wrote.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:08:21AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 12:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

quoted

I don't it's better.
It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.

quoted

With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
of them.

I agree and that's what I wrote.

The set of people who should have sight of the patches is wider than
just the maintainers.

Hi Mark, Joe,


On 07/14/2017 06:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:08:21AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 12:02 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

I don't it's better.
It's not that confusing if the 0/n patch cover letter is cc'd
to all the appropriate mailing lists and all the [1..n]/n
patches are sent with in-reply-to of the cover letter and
send to the maintainers and appropriate mailing lists.

With large serieses like Gustavo is sending the CC list can easily hit
the points where mailing lists start blocking it, and the individual
pathces really do need to go to the relevant people so they have sight
of them.

I agree and that's what I wrote.

The set of people who should have sight of the patches is wider than
just the maintainers.

I'm running get_maintainer.pl in the following way in order to get all 
the supporters, maintainers and lists:

$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nokeywords --nogit --nogit-fallback <file>

Thank you

-- 
Gustavo A. R. Silva

The patch

   ASoC: fsl_asrc: constify snd_soc_dai_ops structure

has been applied to the asoc tree at

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git 

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.  

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

From 29a22ebfa4c44bf96b3d00d90b5e3b8128d8a162 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <redacted>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:23:51 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_asrc: constify snd_soc_dai_ops structure

This structure is only stored in the ops field of a snd_soc_dai_driver
structure. That field is declared const, so snd_soc_dai_ops structures
that have this property can be declared as const also.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
index 8cfffa70c144..806d39927318 100644
--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c
+++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c

@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dai_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
+static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops fsl_asrc_dai_ops = {
 	.hw_params    = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_params,
 	.hw_free      = fsl_asrc_dai_hw_free,
 	.trigger      = fsl_asrc_dai_trigger,

-- 
2.13.2