linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add GPIO support for the MAX6650/6651 ICs

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: <CAOMwXhMVkk5Lbuh6EHtmUqm3QCNbqRbHRPf5RKEQcWuTM7ScOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:31:45 +0000
From:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add GPIO support for the MAX6650/6651 ICs

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2014, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>
>> In other words, I really do not know what format you prefer for design review.
>>
>> Apparently, not as previously requested, so please tell me what format
>> one _should_ submit design reviews in.
>>
>> I personally still think that submitting "pseudo-code" is a good way
>> of it if it is clearly marked so like in my case, so that it does not
>> mislead anyone that I accidentally submit a clearly broken change for
>> an integration candidate.
>>
>> I hope it is understood that I am asking about design reviews before
>> the lengthy implementation to potentially avoid a lot of additional
>> work on both sides with writing and reviewing an implementation with a
>> "wrong" approach...
>
> The correct way to do this is to submit RFC patches. If you start your
> $SUBJECT line with [PATCH RFC x/x], then we know that they're
> development patches and we can treat them as such.
>
> If you're submitting code, in form, which are you in this case, they
> should still abide by the submission rules. I you'd like us to review
> them, then they need to be in an easy to read format. Submitting
> patches with lots of whitespace variation is off-putting and hard to
> review. If you want people to put aside their time to help you, then
> the least you can do is make it easy for them to read. Conforming to
> the 3 documentation files (I know how much you love documentation)
> will ensure you're giving yourself a snowball's chance in Hell of
> 'winning' the response you desire.
>
> All this toing and froing is wasting everyone's time. Just submit
> nice patches for us to review and you will receive the help you
> crave.

Please let me know an automatized way for fixing up style issues for
the kernel. Should I use a separate editor profile for Linux kernel
development? What is the best practice out there?

I can say that from practice that Lindent and others things made the
code even messier than it had been. It is not as simple as you may
think for a newcomer than me. I would rather _not_ spend time with
stylistic issues when the main point is clearly not styling, but
design review.

My conclusion from your email is that, I will not submit code then
because it is just a waste of time for design discussion unless there
is a simple and automated way of taking care of the style stuff.

Cheers again ...
--
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/