linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid: cleanup formatting of megaraid

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: <1dccb035-5f85-d9fd-7c10-3f9cd395deeb@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 18:47:06 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
cc:     Konrad Wilhelm Kleine <kkleine@...hat.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...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 Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Fri, 2022-03-04 at 00:17 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:44 PM Finn Thain wrote:
> > > 
> > > Others might argue that they should always be changed from,
> > > 
> > > /*
> > >  * this style
> > >  * of multiline comment
> > >  */
> > > 
> > > to
> > > 
> > > /* this style
> > >  * of multiline comment
> > >  */
> > 
> > In general, for things that the coding style guide talks about, we 
> > should follow them, even if some subsystems do not (they can always 
> > override in their folder if they really, really want it). So, here for 
> > instance, the first one should be used.
> 
> It's up to individual maintainers to each decide on what might be 
> considered unnecessary churn for the subsystems they control.
> 
> One argument is that churn leads to difficulty in backporting fixes to 
> older 'stable' versions.
> 
> I think the churn argument is overstated.
> 

If you would have clang-format override the committer and retrospectively 
apply subsystem style rules (rather than the rules used by a majority of 
subsystems or those preferred by Linus for example) it would add friction 
to code re-use, movement, comparison, any tree-wide program 
transformation, and also subsystem boundary changes.

Per-subsystem style rules are inherently contentious and therefore good 
candidates for the "leave alone" functionality discussed in the issue 
tracker.