[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <134bb70e-db8a-0892-0a3c-d00ad57fcece@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 23:46:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Omkar Wagle <ov.wagle@...il.com>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, hughd@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MM: shmem: Remove code sytle warnings
mm not MM, style not sytle.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, Omkar Wagle wrote:
> Remove most of the code style warnings
>
> Signed-off-by: Omkar Wagle<ov.wagle@...il.com>
> ---
> mm/shmem.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Thanks for trying, but I'm sorry: very little of this is an improvement.
Almost all of it is just adding a blank line in between declaration and
code in some small block (including at least one from Linus himself).
checkpatch does a good job of encouraging tidy patches, but it makes no
claim to being right; and that particular nag annoys me more often than
any other (though I often grudgingly give in to it, just for a quiet life
- Cc'ing Matthew because I suspect he resents it even more than I do).
And look at those fsparams: Al and others have gone to the trouble of
lining them up nicely, but you've decided to undo their work.
I believe it's explained somewhere (but admit that a quick look in
Documentation didn't show me where), that checkpatch is something to run
to tidy up your patches, or new source files (or perhaps even staging);
but please don't send its advice on well-established source files.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists