Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754200AbYAHVxT (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:53:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751480AbYAHVxJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:53:09 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43816 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750857AbYAHVxH (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:53:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:52:47 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rik van Riel Cc: Paolo Ciarrocchi , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, Linux Kernel , trivial@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86: coding style fixes in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c Message-ID: <20080108215247.GE14829@elte.hu> References: <20080108203233.01bb5c7f@paolo-desktop> <20080108150439.6388028e@bree.surriel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080108150439.6388028e@bree.surriel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1978 Lines: 52 * Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:32:33 +0100 > Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > > > Fix plenty of coding style errors > > Most of these kernel changes would probably get in the way of real > development, making patches reject that would otherwise apply. I'm curious, in what way would they interfere? Firstly, anyone with a forked kernel with outstanding patches that are not in x86.git only has themselves to blame. We want to actively discourage forking and sitting on patches too long. Secondly, when there _is_ some non-trivial interaction with reasonably recently-developed patches, the solution is simple and straightforward we simply undo the relevant portions of the cleanup, apply the functional patch and later on apply the (still relevant) cleanup patches to around the functional patch. Since all new x86.git patches are checkpatch.pl clean, the modified portions need no cleanups anymore - only unmodified portions. How many times did we have to do this in x86.git? Once or twice - out of 100+ cleanup patches. In reality, rarely do cleanup patches interfere. They have two positive effects besides the obvious readability, debuggability and maintainability advantages: - they _do_ cause people to come out of their distro-patched fork-woodwork and submit their "development" patches (which were "in the works" for ... years). - the cleanups make future development _easier_, because it's easier to develop on a clean codebase. and because the number of future patches is infinitely larger than the number of still pending but not submitted development patches, we strongly favor cleanups. so in the end it all works out fine. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/