From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758028AbZGCSlo (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:41:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756075AbZGCSlh (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:41:37 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36870 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755842AbZGCSlg (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:41:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:41:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface Message-ID: <20090703184124.GA4085@elte.hu> References: <20090703102234.GA32128@elte.hu> <20090703114431.37abd528@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703131727.GA3207@elte.hu> <20090703143746.0379b2ee@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703144754.GA13246@elte.hu> <20090703160230.093e422c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703154845.GB13580@elte.hu> <20090703171117.574677de@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703162443.GB21399@elte.hu> <20090703192947.7921a515@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090703192947.7921a515@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > > + if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) { > > > > and you pushed that piece of code upstream, and you called > > checkpatch a religion - so apparently you were not using that > > tool and apparently you think it's fine to push such changes > > upstream. > > The discussion started about something else - a piece of > non-compilable proposal code you space reviewed and didn't even > notice wasn't compileable or sane. > > I'm sort of amused you went back through my commits to find that > example, and its certainly one that should have been fixed in the > final submit. I can't be bothered to write a perl script to > checkpatch all your commits and I suspect they all pass anyway. FYI, it took me less than 10 seconds to find that commit, i didnt have to go to any trouble or perl script - i just searched for the same bad pattern i saw here. You should consider putting in some automation into your workflow if you have some time - it really helps. I was surprised how much easily fixable crap various measures of automation found in my own patches. The tools are there to use them, not to ignore, ridicule or fight them, and for kernel oldbies there's absolutely no valid excuse to not use them IMHO. It's a bit sad you are making such a big deal out of my criticism though. Your criticism about the x86/MTRR code was spot on, mind doing some more review on arch/x86/? Ingo