Hi us,
Clean up CodingStyle for scripts/kconfig/gconf.c.
Thanks.
Best Regards.
Harry Wei.
Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
---
scripts/kconfig/gconf.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
index 4558961..56da945 100644
--- a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
+++ b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
*/
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
-# include <config.h>
+#include <config.h>
#endif
#include "lkc.h"
--
1.7.0.4
Harry Wei wrote:
> Hi us,
> Clean up CodingStyle for scripts/kconfig/gconf.c.
>
What makes you think this is a bad style? Does Documentation/CodingStyle say
so? Does checkpatch.pl make a complain? Do you really think this improves
readability? I don't think so, and actually it makes the code worse.
Run checkpatch.pl on this file, and you'll see lots of errors and warnings,
but pure codingstyle cleanup is rarely worth anything, so better don't do
that.
> Thanks.
> Best Regards.
> Harry Wei.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
> ---
> scripts/kconfig/gconf.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> index 4558961..56da945 100644
> --- a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> */
>
> #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
> -# include <config.h>
> +#include <config.h>
> #endif
>
> #include "lkc.h"
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:28:48AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Harry Wei wrote:
> > Hi us,
> > Clean up CodingStyle for scripts/kconfig/gconf.c.
> >
>
> What makes you think this is a bad style? Does Documentation/CodingStyle say
> so? Does checkpatch.pl make a complain? Do you really think this improves
> readability? I don't think so, and actually it makes the code worse.
But we all write '#include <***>'. I have never seen '# include <***>'.
>
> Run checkpatch.pl on this file, and you'll see lots of errors and warnings,
> but pure codingstyle cleanup is rarely worth anything, so better don't do
> that.
I am sorry, I have not got your meaning clearly.
>
> > Thanks.
> > Best Regards.
> > Harry Wei.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > scripts/kconfig/gconf.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> > index 4558961..56da945 100644
> > --- a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> > +++ b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> > */
> >
> > #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
> > -# include <config.h>
> > +#include <config.h>
> > #endif
> >
> > #include "lkc.h"
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>> Hi us,
>>> Clean up CodingStyle for scripts/kconfig/gconf.c.
>>>
>>
>> What makes you think this is a bad style? Does Documentation/CodingStyle say
>> so? Does checkpatch.pl make a complain? Do you really think this improves
>> readability? I don't think so, and actually it makes the code worse.
> But we all write '#include <***>'. I have never seen '# include <***>'.
Then let's see:
$ find -name '*.c' -exec grep -H '^# .*include' {} \;
./drivers/char/mem.c:# include <linux/efi.h>
./drivers/char/random.c:# include <linux/irq.h>
./drivers/scsi/nsp32.c:# include "nsp32_debug.c"
./drivers/video/epson1355fb.c:# include <mach/hardware.h>
You can look into those cases, and then you should be able to figure out
why.
>>
>> Run checkpatch.pl on this file, and you'll see lots of errors and warnings,
>> but pure codingstyle cleanup is rarely worth anything, so better don't do
>> that.
> I am sorry, I have not got your meaning clearly.
Codingstyle cleanups aren't worth your time, and it would be better for you
and for the kernel project as a whole if you can find something more valuable
to work on.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Best Regards.
>>> Harry Wei.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> scripts/kconfig/gconf.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
>>> index 4558961..56da945 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
>>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
>>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>>> */
>>>
>>> #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
>>> -# include <config.h>
>>> +#include <config.h>
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> #include "lkc.h"
On 23.3.2011 02:28, Li Zefan wrote:
> Harry Wei wrote:
>> Hi us,
>> Clean up CodingStyle for scripts/kconfig/gconf.c.
>>
>
> What makes you think this is a bad style? Does Documentation/CodingStyle say
> so? Does checkpatch.pl make a complain? Do you really think this improves
> readability? I don't think so, and actually it makes the code worse.
This include can be removed completely, there is no config.h in kconfig.
Michal
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:20:00PM +0800, jiaweiwei wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Li Zefan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > >>> Hi us,
> > >>> Clean up CodingStyle for scripts/kconfig/gconf.c.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What makes you think this is a bad style? Does Documentation/CodingStyle
> > say
> > >> so? Does checkpatch.pl make a complain? Do you really think this
> > improves
> > >> readability? I don't think so, and actually it makes the code worse.
> > > But we all write '#include <***>'. I have never seen '# include <***>'.
> >
> > Then let's see:
> >
> > $ find -name '*.c' -exec grep -H '^# .*include' {} \;
> > ./drivers/char/mem.c:# include <linux/efi.h>
> > ./drivers/char/random.c:# include <linux/irq.h>
> > ./drivers/scsi/nsp32.c:# include "nsp32_debug.c"
> > ./drivers/video/epson1355fb.c:# include <mach/hardware.h>
> >
Okay, i see.
> > You can look into those cases, and then you should be able to figure out
> > why.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Run checkpatch.pl on this file, and you'll see lots of errors and
> > warnings,
> > >> but pure codingstyle cleanup is rarely worth anything, so better don't
> > do
> > >> that.
> > > I am sorry, I have not got your meaning clearly.
> >
> > Codingstyle cleanups aren't worth your time, and it would be better for you
> > and for the kernel project as a whole if you can find something more
> > valuable
> > to work on.
Thanks, i will try my best.
Best Regards.
Harry Wei.
> >
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>> Best Regards.
> > >>> Harry Wei.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> scripts/kconfig/gconf.c | 2 +-
> > >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> > >>> index 4558961..56da945 100644
> > >>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> > >>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/gconf.c
> > >>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> > >>> */
> > >>>
> > >>> #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
> > >>> -# include <config.h>
> > >>> +#include <config.h>
> > >>> #endif
> > >>>
> > >>> #include "lkc.h"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> do kernel