Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:23:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:06:17 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew shouts at me if I send him patches that don't fix the style of
> > the lines around so you get some style changes even when I cut bits out
> > of diffs.

Don't think so.  Unrelated changes are well-known poor-form.

I do think that if one is already changing a line which is incorrectly
laid out then there's no point in _leaving_ it incorrect.  There's no
downside to fixing it.

That being said, it's often sorely tempting to go hunting down nearby
sillinesses.  I succumb to that temptation and usually won't complain
when others do also, up to a point.

> I think that approach is *stupid* too and style should be done
> > after for the entire file.
> 
> Then let the maintainer (nominally me) shout at Andrew.  I don't agree
> with those style changes and we usually leave such purely stylistic
> things to the maintainer of the file in question.

mm, not really.  Wrong is wrong and if nominal maintainer insists on
retaining wrong we have cheery bunfights about it.

> If Andrew requires
> these changes, then Andrew is wrong about this.  It just confuses the
> real changes and adds to the overheads of those trying to do reviews (of
> which we have too few).

I think those changes went above and beyond the call.

> And in this case "fix" is in the eye of the
> beholder.

And that is why we have a standard - so that different parts of the
kernel do not end up having different appearance due to local
preferences.