From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762316AbXGXT75 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:59:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757385AbXGXT7o (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:59:44 -0400 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:43368 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756925AbXGXT7n (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:59:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:59:08 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: jschopp Cc: Paul Mundt , Andrew Morton , Andy Whitcroft , "Kok, Auke" , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08 Message-ID: <20070724195908.GF6019@stusta.de> References: <740c90243aaa6f6d4640d71230c4fa27@pinky> <46A534EA.6030008@intel.com> <46A5C12B.3080904@shadowen.org> <20070724021526.3d92286b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070724172217.GA10725@linux-sh.org> <46A648C5.5050902@austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46A648C5.5050902@austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:45:25PM -0500, jschopp wrote: > > > checkpatch has been quite useful >> for catching obviously broken things, and now it seems like it's just >> overreaching. Perhaps this functionality can be split in to a lite >> checkpatch for catching show-stoppers for application and then something >> more akin to a CodingStyle validator for the folks interested in >> arbitrarily defining convention, which they can use freely while the rest >> of us try to get something useful done. > > CodingStyle isn't about arbitrarily defining convention. It is about > making the codebase consistent, which helps a ton in readability and > maintainability. > > Readability is important because it makes the job of the maintainers > easier. If you or I have to spend 5 minutes to fix trivial CodingStyle > issues, but that 5 minutes saves Andrew or other maintainers 60 seconds in > reviewing your patch, we come out ahead. Anything that shifts work from > maintainers to developers is a good thing because maintainers are > overworked as is. > > It could also argue that declaring multiple variables per line or putting > curly braces where they aren't needed doesn't make code unmaintainable. > I'd agree any one of these doesn't make code unmaintainable by itself. But > if all these things are added together it is death by 1000 cuts. The more > readable code is the fewer real bugs it will have because badness stands > out more in clean code. > > So, no we shouldn't separate out CodingStyle because > > Better CodingStyle == less bugs > > and > > Better CodingStyle == more throughput for maintainers To some extent yes. But extreme codingstyling won't gain you anything. Except for long and fruitless discussions. If a tool says anything would be wrong with the line of C code int i, j; for two loop variables, then the tool is wrong because that's an idiom every C programmer knows and understands. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed