From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1770235546283747372==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Al Stone Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:06:17 +0000 Message-ID: <54F79DF6.60204@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan List-ID: To: devel@acpica.org --===============1770235546283747372== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote: >> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone(a)linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Al Stone >>>> >>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code= from >>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into = these >>>> classes: >>>> >>>> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >>>> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >>>> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone >>> >>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding sty= le be >>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, = so >>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code. >>> >>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. >>> >>> >> >> Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I >> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I >> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] >> from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9= ]) >> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I >> misunderstand from that reply? >> >> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next >> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the >> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did >> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term >> maintenance type work. > = > The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me. > "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad > explanation in my view. It is much better to say "This file does not > adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it > into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more close= ly, > make changes as follows." > = > So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes > themselves. Aha. That makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I was being a bit dense; I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer. Thanks for being patient :). -- = ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3(a)redhat.com ----------------------------------- --===============1770235546283747372==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Stone Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0700 Message-ID: <54F79DF6.60204@redhat.com> References: <1424824585-6405-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <1528624.HcuCny6IaW@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F79B9C.1030901@redhat.com> <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: al.stone@linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, robert.moore@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote: >> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Al Stone >>>> >>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >>>> classes: >>>> >>>> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >>>> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >>>> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone >>> >>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be >>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so >>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code. >>> >>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. >>> >>> >> >> Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I >> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I >> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] >> from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) >> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I >> misunderstand from that reply? >> >> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next >> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the >> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did >> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term >> maintenance type work. > > The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me. > "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad > explanation in my view. It is much better to say "This file does not > adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it > into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely, > make changes as follows." > > So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes > themselves. Aha. That makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I was being a bit dense; I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer. Thanks for being patient :). -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@redhat.com ----------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Stone Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:06:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c Message-Id: <54F79DF6.60204@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <1424824585-6405-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <1528624.HcuCny6IaW@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F79B9C.1030901@redhat.com> <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: al.stone@linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, robert.moore@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote: >> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Al Stone >>>> >>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >>>> classes: >>>> >>>> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >>>> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >>>> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone >>> >>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be >>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so >>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code. >>> >>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. >>> >>> >> >> Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I >> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I >> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] >> from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) >> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I >> misunderstand from that reply? >> >> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next >> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the >> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did >> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term >> maintenance type work. > > The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me. > "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad > explanation in my view. It is much better to say "This file does not > adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it > into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely, > make changes as follows." > > So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes > themselves. Aha. That makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I was being a bit dense; I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer. Thanks for being patient :). -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@redhat.com ----------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ahs3@redhat.com (Al Stone) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c In-Reply-To: <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1424824585-6405-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <1528624.HcuCny6IaW@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F79B9C.1030901@redhat.com> <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> Message-ID: <54F79DF6.60204@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote: >> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone at linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Al Stone >>>> >>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >>>> classes: >>>> >>>> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >>>> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >>>> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone >>> >>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be >>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so >>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code. >>> >>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. >>> >>> >> >> Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I >> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I >> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] >> from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) >> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I >> misunderstand from that reply? >> >> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next >> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the >> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did >> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term >> maintenance type work. > > The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me. > "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad > explanation in my view. It is much better to say "This file does not > adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it > into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely, > make changes as follows." > > So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes > themselves. Aha. That makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I was being a bit dense; I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer. Thanks for being patient :). -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3 at redhat.com -----------------------------------