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:20.698 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site