Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8723bs: fix constant on left side of test checkpatch warnings

[Prithvi]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 10:04:08AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 01:01:08PM +0530, Prithvi wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 06:03:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 11:17:16PM +0530, Prithvi wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you very much for taking time to review this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > I understand, that this patch may be considered to be majorly mechanical
> > > > changes, but still, the scope of the patch as well as the changes
> > > > involved make testing important for this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that, in case of unavailability of hardware for testing, I should
> > > > have mentioned it and used the RFT tag for the patch since v1. I
> > > > apologize for missing this detail & understand that compile-time testing
> > > > can't be sufficient here with all the changes introduced by this patch
> > > > and also the concern of the possibility of regressions getting introduced.
> > > > 
> > > > Going forward, I will be meticulous about clearly disclosing the testing 
> > > > status of the patch and if I am not able to test a patch, I will be sure 
> > > > to add RFT tag since v1 of the patch itself.
> > > > 
> > > > Lastly, I wanted to kindly ask if it will be alright to send a v3 patch 
> > > > with the RFT tag, incorporating the changes discussed in this thread?
> > > 
> > > Yes please.
> > > 
> > > But remember to do only one logical thing per patch, I see multiple
> > > things happening in this one :(
> > > 
> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > Sure...just to confirm I should send RFT patch series, with patch 1 being 
> > regarding the change of keeping constant on right side of test (shall I 
> > include the minor changes like proper formatting of if statements, or even
> > value == 0 changed to !value, etc. in same patch itself or strictly keep 
> > only the constant on right side changes in this patch?) and patch 2 being 
> > regarding the API change of using read_poll_timeout_atomic() only, is this 
> > correct?
> 
> What would you want to see if you had to review a patch series?  Which
> is easier, a change that only does one type of logical thing throughout
> it, or one that mixes different things on the same lines?
> 
> Remember, a human has to read all of these :)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Understood - I would send RFT v3 patch series, with each patch doing a single 
logical thing.

Thanks,
Prithvi