From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D1EC433F5 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 22:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244856AbiAEWVa (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:21:30 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:45867 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244842AbiAEWV3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:21:29 -0500 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CA25C0126; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:21:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bur.io; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=7cI9CcU62tEAnmWOH8mA0gwV17D OmIf5AT1mlwgR/AE=; b=zXFtCSSLnsq8TfX+SBAHlOCaJwOG5KfmV94FWB2qEa7 81XWaQeEMyk5AYUl8uXmarh+Dmgb8M22IX1eS6gabd1sqNRHxufI9YbmCqz5TUR9 5lIgBjBXqjUofqynGJ/qTlMK2xistJGNxxDsiyaY4jfToD/9gbd3vvVVjNFdUn6G bt8UKUM5pD5SrBXB0eGjLo85IaEFWPNgsJMWHVfJyIGugVhlrWv7FuisA5tfqNaG N+taoqbrp23u/wq+Ey53bjqbSrlGfUI2RaZSuJYNelaXhJLoXj7YcQsBq6EzwWDm nRINzKBaVklSzFoL813LLtPQwrvajr6CmW45O+gDwfw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=7cI9Cc U62tEAnmWOH8mA0gwV17DOmIf5AT1mlwgR/AE=; b=SMB/8q/jjvEojPdEj14bHW DSFlb3iJThjnxmsep9fOpJXCNDqJei45U6lUGGNkXa3QMtkLBE6A5P7Q26J046Ja a1sHdkRlx7ZQDF2+Q+ooi7W7LzzlOJI9ii2LR/TOt27JJPWB6WcpzOxHWKXad7bb I5CPrjZdsOqNS4Lz4TT1yQDZwJVsS931CpJuSBmpqJtvcVLOTcHi1bMSrfUDVizS dmIvofDbZcTcOnhd20vNUE3eT9cP2O+Cxd8NQqWq0MRwmYZMmJSMahUqNaTVOyqW Q70XS2giKQK92dgpljt81LiFNCPB7RdM2Dep7kXEakS9k2DPMmTY6uk3VoF2jH3g == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrudefjedgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeeuohhrihhs uceuuhhrkhhovhcuoegsohhrihhssegsuhhrrdhioheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephe duveelkeeiteelveeiuefhudehtdeigfehkeeffeegledvueevgefgudeuveefnecuvehl uhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepsghorhhishessg hurhdrihho X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:21:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 14:21:27 -0800 From: Boris Burkov To: Goffredo Baroncelli Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Zygo Blaxell , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , Sinnamohideen Shafeeq , Paul Jones , Goffredo Baroncelli Subject: Re: [RFC][V9][PATCH 0/6] btrfs: allocation_hint mode Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org I noticed this patchset still suffers from some checkpatch failures with stuff like spaces around parens and minus signs, tabs vs spaces, etc. We generally try to keep checkpatch happy in btrfs, though of course reason should always prevail. FWIW, I have it rebased on kdave/misc-next and ran: checkpatch.pl -g kdave/misc-next..