Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:39:03 -0500
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@elte.hu,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: +
 x86-add-support-for-pud-sized-transparent-hugepages-checkpatch-fixes.patch
 added to -mm tree
Message-ID: <20160310143903.GF2464@linux.intel.com>
References: <56b13381.v0wS03ZQEKxwivVW%akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <20160203074835.GB32652@gmail.com>
 <20160304203018.GC5530@linux.intel.com>
 <20160309120807.GA3161@gmail.com>
 <20160309165507.GA2464@linux.intel.com>
 <20160310093750.GA2452@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160310093750.GA2452@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1334
Lines: 28

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:37:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > It seems unfair to ask me to do better than what is there right now.
> > > 
> > > It's absolutely fair for maintainers to require the improvement of existing code 
> > > you want to modify, especially when you are complicating existing code ...
> > 
> > I'm not complicating it.  I'm duplicating it.
> 
> I don't think your language lawyering is particularly constructive: you are adding 
> new functionality to existing x86 code, and as such you need to address review 
> feedback from x86 maintainers - even if it involves old code.

Absolutely.  But if I've just copied-and-pasted code from elsewhere in
the same file, then I have no obligation to fix style problems.  Indeed,
with the variety of styles throughout the kernel, following local style
is clearly the right thing to do for someone who is at best an occasional
contributor to a particular file.

> Anyway, until my concerns are addressed the x86 bits are NAK-ed:
> 
>   NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

You're adorable.  You'd reject this feature over the format of a comment
that you don't like.  And you'd rather argue about whether I should fix
the comment than review the patch elsewhere in this thread where I remove
the need for the comment.

It's a good thing Andrea is constructive.