[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e65fd08d-984f-0bdc-5fbf-6abceacf819a@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:33:13 -0400
From: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, Ulrich Kunitz <kune@...ne-taler.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] zd1211rw/zd_usb.h: Replace zero-length array with
flexible-array member
On 3/10/20 6:28 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 17:21 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> On 3/10/20 5:15 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually make a difference as
>>> all the compilers produce the same object code with either form.
>>>
>>
>> That's precisely why we can implement these changes, cleanly(the fact
>> that the compiler produces the same object code). So, the resulting
>> object code is not the point here.
>
> You are making Jes' point.
>
> There's nothing wrong with making changes just for consistent
> style across the kernel.
>
> This change is exactly that.
>
> I have no objection to this patch.
>
> Jes does, though Jes is not a maintainer of this file.
I responded to this thread because my previous comments to files I
maintain were ignored.
This is a bulk change across the tree, so it affects a lot of places.
> I think "churn" arguments are overstated.
Again, the changes are not harmful to the code, but add no value. So far
I haven't seen any good arguments for making these changes, and having
this kind of churn is a nuisance for anyone hitting patch conflicts due
to them.
Jes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists