From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755511AbYEWR0r (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 13:26:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751235AbYEWR0h (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 13:26:37 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55133 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102AbYEWR0f (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 13:26:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:25:37 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Alan Cox , mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Switch apm to unlocked_kernel Message-Id: <20080523102537.2fbc74f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080523232339.27a28b5b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20080522212204.177410b8@core> <20080523110353.7a1360b5.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080523120617.6a4c115c@core> <20080523232339.27a28b5b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:23:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:06:17 +0100 Alan Cox 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.