linux-kernel - Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre: checkpatch cleanups for nidstring.c

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: <CABqvwjtkS-uQH5e0zbCKFq3pkZSGrj6wo80SDa6PLgtKFVgUTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:24:18 -0500
From:	Michael Shuey <shuey@...due.edu>
To:	"Simmons, James A." <simmonsja@...l.gov>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre: checkpatch cleanups
 for nidstring.c

I suspect you're over-thinking it.  The maintainers appear to be
reacting to the different types of style changes - "checkpatch
cleanups" is an awfully broad commit message.  I'd suggest breaking
this patch (and any others like it) into two pieces; one with
whitespace cleanups, and one with the "== NULL" fixes (and mentioning
both by kind in the commit message, rather than just attributing to
checkpatch).  Then issue a v2 of the series, and see where you land.

Of course, YMMV. :-)

--
Mike Shuey


On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Simmons, James A. <simmonsja@...l.gov> wrote:
>>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 07:28:21PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
>>> With nidstring now having the latest fixes we can
>>> now clean up all the remaining checkpatch errors
>>> for nidstring.c.
>>
>>Please be specific as to exactly what you changed, and break it up into
>>one-patch-per-thing.  And no, "fix all checkpatch errors" is not "one
>>thing"
>
> Hmm. This makes me think I might be going about this wrong.  Instead of
> doing style changes per file I should be doing one style change per subsystem
> instead. Unless you prefer doing these style changes on per file base. Perhaps
> for now I should focus on pushing the fixes that have cumulated and once
> caught up then finished off the style issues.
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
--
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/