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;
From:   Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] zd1211rw/zd_usb.h: Replace zero-length array with
 flexible-array member
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>, Ulrich Kunitz <kune@deine-taler.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200305111216.GA24982@embeddedor>
 <87k13yq2jo.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
 <256881484c5db07e47c611a56550642a6f6bd8e9.camel@perches.com>
 <87blpapyu5.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
 <1bb7270f-545b-23ca-aa27-5b3c52fba1be@embeddedor.com>
 <87r1y0nwip.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
 <48ff1333-0a14-36d8-9565-a7f13a06c974@embeddedor.com>
 <021d1125-3ffd-39ef-395a-b796c527bde4@gmail.com>
 <fb3395d7-e932-10ac-1feb-ab2ceb63424e@embeddedor.com>
 <937b0b529509ec1641453ef7c13f38e2d7cc813e.camel@perches.com>
 <c2aa4d8d-1c39-1903-2b49-382f2143e181@embeddedor.com>
 <8b6213e51131deacbdac29a8d9c088ae49933724.camel@perches.com>
Message-ID: <e65fd08d-984f-0bdc-5fbf-6abceacf819a@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:33:13 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8b6213e51131deacbdac29a8d9c088ae49933724.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/10/20 6:28 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 17:21 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> On 3/10/20 5:15 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, it doesn't actually make a difference as
>>> all the compilers produce the same object code with either form.
>>>
>>
>> That's precisely why we can implement these changes, cleanly(the fact
>> that the compiler produces the same object code). So, the resulting
>> object code is not the point here.
> 
> You are making Jes' point.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with making changes just for consistent
> style across the kernel.
> 
> This change is exactly that.
> 
> I have no objection to this patch.
> 
> Jes does, though Jes is not a maintainer of this file.

I responded to this thread because my previous comments to files I
maintain were ignored.

This is a bulk change across the tree, so it affects a lot of places.

> I think "churn" arguments are overstated.

Again, the changes are not harmful to the code, but add no value. So far
I haven't seen any good arguments for making these changes, and having
this kind of churn is a nuisance for anyone hitting patch conflicts due
to them.

Jes