lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] USB: serial: cp210x: Got rid of magic numbers in CRTSCTS flag code.
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:17:26PM +0000, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Johan Hovold [mailto:jhovold@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Johan Hovold
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 07:55
> > To: Konstantin Shkolnyy
> > Cc: Johan Hovold; Konstantin Shkolnyy; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] USB: serial: cp210x: Got rid of magic
> > numbers in CRTSCTS flag code.
> >
> > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 12:46:17PM +0000, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- From: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org
> > > > [mailto:linux-usb- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Johan Hovold
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 02:29 To: Konstantin Shkolnyy Cc:
> > > > johan@kernel.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > > > kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] USB:
> > > > serial: cp210x: Got rid of magic numbers in CRTSCTS flag code.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > > > > Replaced magic numbers used in the CRTSCTS flag code with symbolic
> > > > names
> > > > > from the chip specification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Shkolnyy <konstantin.shkolnyy@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > This patch does not even compile. Please be more careful when
> > > > resubmitting. There are at least two compilation errors below.
> > >
> > > Sorry about that.
> > >
> > > It's a couple of dumb syntax errors that don't really matter for
> > > change review purpose. Otherwise, do the patches look good?
> >
> > It's worse than that as when the code doesn't even compile it's obvious
> > that it has never been tested. That is just not acceptable, and the code
> > does not deserve review.
>
> Well, I did test the final code. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that
> the point of a patch series is that it gets applied or rejected
> entirely, so nobody would run the code in the middle of it.

No, every patch in a series should be correct, and must specifically not
break bisectability by failing to compile.

Johan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-04 15:41    [W:0.044 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site