Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <d26d4bd8-b5e1-f4d5-b563-9bc4dd384ff8@acm.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:42:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid: cleanup formatting of megaraid
Content-Language: en-US
To:     trix@redhat.com, kashyap.desai@broadcom.com,
        sumit.saxena@broadcom.com, shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, nathan@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com
Cc:     megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
References: <20220127151945.1244439-1-trix@redhat.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220127151945.1244439-1-trix@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/27/22 07:19, trix@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> 
> checkpatch reports several hundred formatting errors.
> Run these files through clang-format and knock off
> some of them.

Isn't this the kind of patches that carries more risk than value? 
Additionally, this patch conflicts with a patch series that I plan to 
post soon.

Thanks,

Bart.