From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] acpi: fix a bunch of style issues on 'actypes.h' Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:16:07 +0300 Message-ID: <94a0d4530910190916t2bdd9ecl59a3cfc0cc732852@mail.gmail.com> References: <1255906474-25091-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1255906474-25091-6-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <94a0d4530910190757y139c7e20xe6a58f0cbf13a79d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:44138 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756833AbZJSQQE (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:16:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Kosina Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Bob Moore , Lin Ming , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > I have never been in favor of merging whitespace-only patches (in a >> > sense that the sole purpose of them being to change whitespaces, but >> > no else value added). >> If somebody tries to send a patch for that file that doesn't fix the >> white-space, checkpatch will complain, and people will complain that >> checkpatch complains, which is precisely what happened, > > Oh, well ... checkpatch warning about this is somewhat controversial. My > preferred way would be that it warns about whitespace only if there are > also some other (non-whitespace) changes. Huh? I think we are talking about different things. See the next comment. >> and I was requested to write this patch by Daniel Walker (final mail >> wasn't on the ml): >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/14/183 > > This is something slightly different -- he asks you to fixup whitespace > issue in the code you are newly introducing, right? No, did you read the thread? This was my patch: -#define ACPI_MIN(a,b) (((a)<(b))?(a):(b)) -#define ACPI_MAX(a,b) (((a)>(b))?(a):(b)) +#define ACPI_MIN(a,b) min(a, b) +#define ACPI_MAX(a,b) max(a, b) Checkpatch complains, even though my changes are ok. So that's what I mean, if somebody wants to do a similar patch in the future so that checkpatch doesn't complain; they would have to fix the white-spaces again. Or checkpatch should be fixed. >> > And after today's discussion on kernel summit on this topic, I wouldn't >> > expect any maintainer to merge it, sorry :) >> What are you talking about? > > Seems like many kernel maintainers are just tired of > 'whitespace-cleanup-only' patches that bring no real added value > otherwise. Hm, I wonder what would happen to the current badly formatted code. Stay there forever? -- Felipe Contreras