linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] acpi: fix a bunch of style issues on 'actypes.h'

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <94a0d4530910190916t2bdd9ecl59a3cfc0cc732852@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:16:07 +0300
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Bob Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] acpi: fix a bunch of style issues on 'actypes.h'

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > I have never been in favor of merging whitespace-only patches (in a
>> > sense that the sole purpose of them being to change whitespaces, but
>> > no else value added).
>> If somebody tries to send a patch for that file that doesn't fix the
>> white-space, checkpatch will complain, and people will complain that
>> checkpatch complains, which is precisely what happened,
>
> Oh, well ... checkpatch warning about this is somewhat controversial. My
> preferred way would be that it warns about whitespace only if there are
> also some other (non-whitespace) changes.

Huh? I think we are talking about different things. See the next comment.

>> and I was requested to write this patch by Daniel Walker (final mail
>> wasn't on the ml):
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/14/183
>
> This is something slightly different -- he asks you to fixup whitespace
> issue in the code you are newly introducing, right?

No, did you read the thread?

This was my patch:
-#define ACPI_MIN(a,b)                   (((a)<(b))?(a):(b))
-#define ACPI_MAX(a,b)                   (((a)>(b))?(a):(b))
+#define ACPI_MIN(a,b)                   min(a, b)
+#define ACPI_MAX(a,b)                   max(a, b)

Checkpatch complains, even though my changes are ok. So that's what I
mean, if somebody wants to do a similar patch in the future so that
checkpatch doesn't complain; they would have to fix the white-spaces
again.

Or checkpatch should be fixed.

>> > And after today's discussion on kernel summit on this topic, I wouldn't
>> > expect any maintainer to merge it, sorry :)
>> What are you talking about?
>
> Seems like many kernel maintainers are just tired of
> 'whitespace-cleanup-only' patches that bring no real added value
> otherwise.

Hm, I wonder what would happen to the current badly formatted code.
Stay there forever?

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/