[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180711160547.59f086a587c7f3c8d3c40f0f@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:05:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Yisheng Xie <ysxie@...mail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
> But I still have the situation that a bunch of maintainers acked this
> and Andrew Morton defacto nacked it, which I guess means I'll keep the
> macro in drm? The common way to go about this seems to be to just push
> the patch series with the ack in some pull request to Linus and ignore
> the people who raised questions, but not really my thing.
Heh.
But, am I wrong? Code which uses regular kernel style doesn't have
these issues. We shouldn't be enabling irregular style - we should be
making such sites more regular. The fact that the compiler generates a
nice warning in some cases simply helps us with that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists