lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only
On Tue, 25 March 2008 11:48:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> So, in the specific example of the scheduler subsystem, i've only
> observed advantages to checkpatch and zero downsides. Could anyone give
> me _any_ objective reason why i shouldnt be using checkpatch for the
> scheduler? More broadly, could anyone give me an objective reason why we
> shouldnt be doing it for arch/x86? And even more broadly, could anyone
> give me an objective reason why we shouldnt be doing it for all actively
> maintained areas of the kernel?

Disagreement between checkpatch and maintainers preferred style. I've
had a patch that fixed a bug and - while in the region - "cleaned up"
the style for a single line. This line no longer matches the rest of
the file and creates the kind of visual distraction you complain about.

In short, for a file with an active maintainer whatever the maintainer
prefers should be done. Doing a full checkpatch sweep against a
maintainers wishes is madness, doing a partial "cleanup" is worse.
Of course when a maintainer likes checkpatch, as you do, there is no
disagreement to deal with. :)

Jörn

--
I don't understand it. Nobody does.
-- Richard P. Feynman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-25 12:15    [W:0.240 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site