[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <38d7b19f-b6ff-437b-bc88-fa2047ca556a@p183>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 19:23:07 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Clarifying confusion of our variable placement rules caused by
cleanup.h
On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 09:50:29AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:17:32 +0100
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > > There was variation of this type of nonsense with headers (not only it has
> > > to be sorted alphabetically but by length too!)
> >
> > By length it indeed sounds weird, but alphabetical is the natural language
> > order everybody learnt from the daycare / school years, so it's properly
> > programmed in our deep brain. Having that allows to find easily if anything one
> > is interested in is already being included. Also it allows to avoid dup inclusions
> > (was there, fixed that for real). So, it's not bad.
>
> Actually, I like the "by length" because its aesthetically easier on the eyes.
>
> Alphabetically is fine, but either one helps in catching duplicate headers.
Such rules for headers are mostly harmless -- headers are supposed to be
idempotent so ordering doesn't matter. But if ordering doesn't matter
why have a rule at all?
Duplicate header are trivially caught by tooling.
But such rules aren't useful either -- I've seen that Python IDEs hide
import list by default (and probably manage it) because it is not "real"
code.
Rules for initializers can be harmful because ordering affects code
generation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists