linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] samples: configfs: order includes alphabetically

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: <CAMRc=Mf8BDyoy+V-S_JQjAZ9+Lt=+5pEYH2ugSL0pbQ5E5Dfrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:23:11 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] samples: configfs: order includes alphabetically

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > The preferred coding style is to order all includes alphabetically for
> > improved readability. There's no need for the configfs header to come
> > last.
>
> Is it?  People seem to have all kinds of weird opinions, but I don't
> think any ordering really makes sense.  What does make sense it dropping
> the pointless empty line, so I've folded that into the next patch.

This is not just a baseless opinion, keeping headers sorted clearly
has an advantage: you more easily avoid duplicating includes, you see
right away if a header is already included or not. Many maintainers
will require ordering in new patches.

It's your call but it's better code with not much effort.

Bartosz