Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 May 2008 10:25:37 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel |
| |
On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:23:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Alan, > > On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:06:17 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Andrew shouts at me if I send him patches that don't fix the style of > > the lines around so you get some style changes even when I cut bits out > > of diffs.
Don't think so. Unrelated changes are well-known poor-form.
I do think that if one is already changing a line which is incorrectly laid out then there's no point in _leaving_ it incorrect. There's no downside to fixing it.
That being said, it's often sorely tempting to go hunting down nearby sillinesses. I succumb to that temptation and usually won't complain when others do also, up to a point.
> I think that approach is *stupid* too and style should be done > > after for the entire file. > > Then let the maintainer (nominally me) shout at Andrew. I don't agree > with those style changes and we usually leave such purely stylistic > things to the maintainer of the file in question.
mm, not really. Wrong is wrong and if nominal maintainer insists on retaining wrong we have cheery bunfights about it.
> If Andrew requires > these changes, then Andrew is wrong about this. It just confuses the > real changes and adds to the overheads of those trying to do reviews (of > which we have too few).
I think those changes went above and beyond the call.
> And in this case "fix" is in the eye of the > beholder.
And that is why we have a standard - so that different parts of the kernel do not end up having different appearance due to local preferences.
| |