Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: remove check of list iterator against head past
 the loop body
From:   Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220331193411.2fdbeb88@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 01:39:48 +0200
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@vu.nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@vu.nl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F0AC0EC6-35F9-4A2F-836F-513C03A622EC@gmail.com>
References: <20220331223752.902726-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
 <20220331191005.2954969f@gandalf.local.home>
 <212AE797-912E-47D1-9DC4-03B5351AFC57@gmail.com>
 <20220331193411.2fdbeb88@gandalf.local.home>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Precedence: bulk


> On 1. Apr 2022, at 01:34, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 01:22:58 +0200
> Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> Can you move this to the first declaration to keep the nice =
"upside-down
>>> x-mas tree" look. =20
>>=20
>> Thanks, I'll fix that up. It seems like this is not applied on the =
entire kernel
>> making treewide changes a bit more difficult. Is it documented =
somewhere, which
>> parts of the kernel enforce this? Just looking two lines down from =
here it
>> seems to be 'broken' already so just from looking at existing code =
it's often
>> hard to judge.
>=20
> It's one of those things that some maintainers prefer (I'm one of them =
;-)
> because it makes it easier to read IMHO.
>=20
> But as you noticed, it's broken even in the same file. That's because =
I
> don't strictly enforce it. If there's a lot of code that looks good to =
go
> in, I don't ask to fix it. But as this was a small trivial patch, I =
figured
> I'd mention it.

I'm happy to fix it, I was just checking coding-style.rst and =
checkpatch.pl
and was hoping to find this documented somewhere.

>=20
> Thus, it's something that you do when asked, but don't worry about =
doing it
> across the board, you are not going to upset anybody by forgetting to =
do it.

I guess then I'll stick with the strategy to incorporate when it's =
obvious
or to my knowledge (net/*) and otherwise fix when pointed out :)

Thanks for the additional info.

>=20
> -- Steve

	Jakob