From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
trivial@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86: coding style fixes in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:52:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080108215247.GE14829@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080108150439.6388028e@bree.surriel.com>
* Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:32:33 +0100
> Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-08 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-08 19:32 [PATCH 3/5] x86: coding style fixes in arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-01-08 19:59 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-01-08 20:04 ` Rik van Riel
2008-01-08 20:51 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-08 21:52 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-01-08 22:17 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-08 22:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-08 23:57 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-09 0:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-08 22:55 ` Jiri Slaby
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080108215247.GE14829@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=trivial@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.