Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932295Ab0BDODb (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:03:31 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:21265 "EHLO ironport2-out.pppoe.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932248Ab0BDOD3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:03:29 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak0BAKRiaktLd/sX/2dsb2JhbAAIgyvDXpAHgS6CQ1oE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,404,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="55306217" Message-ID: <4B6AD3AF.5010501@teksavvy.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:03:27 -0500 From: Mark Lord User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Joe Perches , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] drivers/ata: Fix continuation line formats References: <12d39ac4f14bfe82a02b4ee246d183b48988fe12.1265095094.git.joe@perches.com> <4B69B0A0.2040701@teksavvy.com> <1265224535.24887.16.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <4B6A5443.6090804@teksavvy.com> <20100203211331.81d9bb69.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100203211331.81d9bb69.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1513 Lines: 38 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:59:47 -0500 Mark Lord wrote: >> Joe Perches wrote: >>> If it's ever agreed that all lines > 80 cols are OK or >>> new args after column 80 are OK, then sure. Until then, >>> if you want it, you should do it. >> .. >> >> You are the code nanny trying to get this patch in. Not me. >> > > It's a runtime bug. Are "code nannies" supposed to "try" to fix > runtime bugs in libata while others just sit there and insult them? .. Oh, there's a service affecting bug there? Well, I guess that means we should accept a shoddy patch, then. :) But seriously, I didn't mean anything bad by it, just that it ought to be simple for the original sender to just reformat it and resubmit. Just like everyone else here does on a daily basis. No point in making the code harder to read/understand for no good reason. But if these patches are robot generated (by a code scan tool or something), then the original sender (Joe) might have many others in the queue throughout the kernel, which could explain the reluctance here. Really, though the best solution would be for Jeff to just edit that one line as he integrates the patch, like Linus would do. I imagine Jeff's already done that by now. ;) Cheers -- 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/