From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756661AbZC3BeP (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:34:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753216AbZC3Bd7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:33:59 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:36673 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753130AbZC3Bd6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:33:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:33:55 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be Message-ID: <20090330013355.GO28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20090329175642.GA26405@x200.localdomain> <20090329232422.GA9873@elte.hu> <20090329234839.GL28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20090330011355.GA11087@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090330011355.GA11087@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13:55AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > There is simply no excuse for ever having let that crap get there > into fs/proc/base.c. There is no excuse for ever letting that crap > grow. The fact that that crap is there is proof of systemic failure > over the years to keep that code clean. Nothing like proof by assertion, eh? > I dont really want to see "real work" done on code that was not > properly and cleanly finished in the first place. Tough. At the moment we have a rather unpleasant hole with tentative fix that touches fs/proc/base.c. Whether you want said work postponed until all whitespace wanking is done on file in question or not, I simply don't give a damn - getting rid of real bug takes precedence. Whitespace crap should be dealt with as we go through the functions containing such crap, religious bullshit nonwithstanding. And I very much object against completely unfounded assertions claiming that checkpatch noise makes a useful proxy for code quality. You keep making those again and again, without a shred of evidence to show.