Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756470AbZAVWZW (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:25:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758788AbZAVWYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:24:48 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f20.google.com ([209.85.219.20]:56647 "EHLO mail-ew0-f20.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758748AbZAVWYq (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:24:46 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=xkgRtkRsfwDg+7t38Ob4XI8JuJ2dIgoUZv+N9YyUKL50nPuTaQxUnAJuyR5ese0rKK oTijjXOocM0a//jsxzLhE4VQac72XGdfirPrJRgGh8qEPiYIldiQilqF5AVThNSzZ2k2 uAT1P+udhs3dd3i9Yg/VfZ9JnOZUIV/gW9pDI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090122221641.GA31487@elte.hu> References: <20090109193738.GA9827@linode.davidb.org> <20090110124335.GB30744@elte.hu> <20090110165033.GA23943@logfs.org> <20090110101235.7ca24c44.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090110221528.GA31774@elte.hu> <20090111153920.GC7401@elte.hu> <20090111163018.GA9300@suse.de> <20090122215041.GA29369@redhat.com> <20090122221641.GA31487@elte.hu> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:24:41 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6c2e90a942ee20b1 Message-ID: <84144f020901221424l7905d88ajc5c5438fe491da6c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Squashfs pull request for 2.6.29 From: Pekka Enberg To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Dave Jones , Greg KH , Geert Uytterhoeven , Andrew Morton , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= , David Brown , Phil Oester , Kay Sievers , Phillip Lougher , Christoph Hellwig , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1251 Lines: 27 Hi Ingo, On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > "real review" only becomes easy if the code _is reviewable to begin with_: > if it is written in standard coding patterns where we almost > sub-consciously recognize bad constructs and bad practices. > > I've seen it time and again that if the code is cleaned up visually, real > review and real improvements follow eventually. It's a gradual process and > you just cannot do "real review" efficiently without what you call the > "checkpatch crap". Agreed. When I looked at the pile of crap in drivers/staging/winbond at first, it was more or less impossible to even say what the hell the driver was doing. That was because (a) there were tons of obfuscating wrappers carried over from Windows driver APIs and (b) there's so much dead code it's not even funny! So yeah, doing a "real review" on that monster before we get the basics right would probably be a complete waste of time. Pekka -- 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/