From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:22:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4B183A2E.5080402@garzik.org> References: <20091125170218.5446.13513.sendpatchset@localhost> <200912032256.39790.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B18357C.8070807@garzik.org> <200912032306.52022.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B18376B.3080404@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f187.google.com ([209.85.210.187]:56714 "EHLO mail-yx0-f187.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752893AbZLCWWe (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:22:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B18376B.3080404@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Alan Cox , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/03/2009 05:10 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Did the patch contain -cosmetic- changes intermingled with code changes, > in the same code lines? No. > > Is it good kernel practice to intermingle cosmetic changes with > functional ones, in the same code lines? Also, no. In fact, I recall one case where a certain developer on this list used cosmetic code changes (Lindent, IIRC) to hide functional, security-related code changes. Mixing cosmetic and function changes is simply bad engineering practice, _especially_ when they occur in the same lines of code. Jeff