[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080325111129.GB11359@logfs.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:11:29 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jirislaby@...il.com,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, joe@...ches.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only
On Tue, 25 March 2008 11:48:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> So, in the specific example of the scheduler subsystem, i've only
> observed advantages to checkpatch and zero downsides. Could anyone give
> me _any_ objective reason why i shouldnt be using checkpatch for the
> scheduler? More broadly, could anyone give me an objective reason why we
> shouldnt be doing it for arch/x86? And even more broadly, could anyone
> give me an objective reason why we shouldnt be doing it for all actively
> maintained areas of the kernel?
Disagreement between checkpatch and maintainers preferred style. I've
had a patch that fixed a bug and - while in the region - "cleaned up"
the style for a single line. This line no longer matches the rest of
the file and creates the kind of visual distraction you complain about.
In short, for a file with an active maintainer whatever the maintainer
prefers should be done. Doing a full checkpatch sweep against a
maintainers wishes is madness, doing a partial "cleanup" is worse.
Of course when a maintainer likes checkpatch, as you do, there is no
disagreement to deal with. :)
Jörn
--
I don't understand it. Nobody does.
-- Richard P. Feynman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists