[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mByZfV62bXkd366GNX1ReF92=rUf9Dyh165Ce+Wc3F2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:55:01 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clang-format: Update with v6.11-rc1's `for_each` macro list
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:39 PM Javier Carrasco
<javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com> wrote:
>
> A quick test threw 326 extra macros that are defined in internal headers
> under drivers/ and arch/. Including internal headers would remove the
> need to update the list if a macro is moved from inlcude/ to an internal
> header, but the list will need to be updated much more often.
There would be more changes in each iteration (which is why we avoided
scanning everything in the beginning), but currently it is
best-effort. If nowadays there are subsystems that want to start
considering soft-enforcing `clang-format` and that is why they need
them updated as soon as possible, then we should discuss other
alternatives (please let me know if that is the case!).
For instance, we could try to somehow divide the list into individual
subsystems, so that they control it and can perform the updates at the
same time in their commits as needed.
Anyway, for the time being, we should avoid editing the list "manually".
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists