Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:05:47 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Yisheng Xie <ysxie@foxmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()
Message-Id: <20180711160547.59f086a587c7f3c8d3c40f0f@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uFEYyD2ChWnO_0PS_rkK180dDoQ1g4J0UWRfchnYQxOTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180709083650.23549-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
        <20180709162509.29343-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
        <20180709163001.8fb8148223a57bc46a13fbda@linux-foundation.org>
        <20180710075328.GG3008@phenom.ffwll.local>
        <871scbwfd4.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
        <CAKMK7uFEYyD2ChWnO_0PS_rkK180dDoQ1g4J0UWRfchnYQxOTA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> But I still have the situation that a bunch of maintainers acked this
> and Andrew Morton defacto nacked it, which I guess means I'll keep the
> macro in drm? The common way to go about this seems to be to just push
> the patch series with the ack in some pull request to Linus and ignore
> the people who raised questions, but not really my thing.

Heh.

But, am I wrong?  Code which uses regular kernel style doesn't have
these issues.  We shouldn't be enabling irregular style - we should be
making such sites more regular.  The fact that the compiler generates a
nice warning in some cases simply helps us with that.