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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602260806380.16296@hxeon>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:12:19 +0900 (KST)
From:	SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
To:	Chen Gang <chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, trivial@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, rientjes@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
	vdavydov@...tuozzo.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH trivial] include/linux/gfp.h: Improve the coding styles



On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Chen Gang wrote:

> On 2/26/16 00:07, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 06:26:31AM +0800, chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn wrote:
>>
>> I do not want this patch to go through the trivial tree. It still adds
>> another step to identifying relevant commits through git blame and has
>> limited, if any, benefit to maintainability.
>>
>>>   "it's preferable to preserve blame than go through a layer of cleanup
>>>   when looking for the commit that defined particular flags".
>>>
>>
>> git blame identifies what commit last altered a line. If a cleanup patch
>> is encountered then the tree before that commit needs to be examined
>> which adds time. It's rare that cleanup patches on their own are useful
>> and this is one of those cases.
>>
>
> git is a tool mainly for analyzing code, but not mainly for normal
> reading main code.
>
> So for me, the coding styles need not consider about git.


It is common to see reject of trivial coding style fixup patch here and
there.  Those patches usually be merged for early stage files that only
few people read / write.  However, for files that are old and lots of
people read and write, those patches are rejected in usual.  I mean, the
negative opinions for this patches are usual in this community.

I agree that coding style is important and respect your effort.  However,
because the code will be seen and written by most kernel hackers, the file
should be maintained to be easily readable and writable by most kernel
hackers, especially, maintainers.  What I want to say is, we should
respect maintainers' opinion in usual.

As far as I remember, I have seen a document that saying same with others'
opinion but couldn't find it.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

>
>
> Thanks.
> -- 
> Chen Gang (陈刚)
>
> Managing Natural Environments is the Duty of Human Beings.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ