[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07419415-3087-48e6-955a-b5024d943e07@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:19:21 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@...il.com>
Cc: linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, Jack Doan <me@...kdoan.com>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Leonard Anderweit <leonard.anderweit@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Fix alignment of function
call params
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Aleksa Savic wrote:
> On 2023-04-10 18:53:08 GMT+02:00, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure I understand how this would improve readability.
> > It seems to accomplish the opposite. Sure, I know, checkpatch --strict
> > complains, but that is still better than unreadable code just to make
> > checkpatch happy.
> >
> > Guenter
>
> Both seemed fine to me, the idea was to fix the checkpatch warning.
> If it's OK for it to complain about this, plus the changes would make it
> harder to read, please ignore this patch.
>
checkpatch is useful, but not in situations where following its guidance
results in code which is diffficult to read. I run checkpatch --strict when
applying patches, so I do notice when it complains. If I want a report
to be addressed, I'll say that (such as, for example, when people are
overly generous with empty lines). If not, you can assume that I am ok with
the report and find it more important to have readable code than being
checkpatch-clean.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists