Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754584AbYCYLMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:12:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752312AbYCYLL6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:11:58 -0400 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:50717 "EHLO longford.logfs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752267AbYCYLL5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:11:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:11:29 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Ingo Molnar Cc: David Miller , jirislaby@gmail.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, joe@perches.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only Message-ID: <20080325111129.GB11359@logfs.org> References: <20080323085210.GE10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080323.032013.79276201.davem@davemloft.net> <47E647AC.1060906@gmail.com> <20080323.051929.267232495.davem@davemloft.net> <20080325104841.GA24211@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080325104841.GA24211@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1438 Lines: 31 On Tue, 25 March 2008 11:48:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So, in the specific example of the scheduler subsystem, i've only > observed advantages to checkpatch and zero downsides. Could anyone give > me _any_ objective reason why i shouldnt be using checkpatch for the > scheduler? More broadly, could anyone give me an objective reason why we > shouldnt be doing it for arch/x86? And even more broadly, could anyone > give me an objective reason why we shouldnt be doing it for all actively > maintained areas of the kernel? Disagreement between checkpatch and maintainers preferred style. I've had a patch that fixed a bug and - while in the region - "cleaned up" the style for a single line. This line no longer matches the rest of the file and creates the kind of visual distraction you complain about. In short, for a file with an active maintainer whatever the maintainer prefers should be done. Doing a full checkpatch sweep against a maintainers wishes is madness, doing a partial "cleanup" is worse. Of course when a maintainer likes checkpatch, as you do, there is no disagreement to deal with. :) Jörn -- I don't understand it. Nobody does. -- Richard P. Feynman -- 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/