[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f535f31-b993-7365-4964-9f7549afc2a1@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:38:37 -0800
From: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>,
Konrad Wilhelm Kleine <kkleine@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
kashyap.desai@...adcom.com, sumit.saxena@...adcom.com,
shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com, scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid: cleanup formatting of megaraid
On 3/4/22 6:02 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 2:46 PM Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com> wrote:
>> The churn level will be very high.
> Nobody is planning to reformat the entire kernel, at least not until
> the tool is close enough to the kernel style, which will take a while.
The churn on a single file like this is high.
There is no way to separate just one type of change, you get all the
changes.
Not having an opt-in/out per type of change is a flaw that makes
clang-format not ready.
Tom
>
>> Until clang-format has an opt-in mechanism, I do not think clang-format
>> should be used.
>>
>> .clang-format should be moved to staging/ to reflect its not being ready
>> status.
> What is not ready about it?
>
> It is a fairly useful tool that some people is already using, either
> for full file formatting or for sections within their editor.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists