From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757284AbZBPOTk (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:19:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751176AbZBPOTb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:19:31 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:33949 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750746AbZBPOTa (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:19:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:19:17 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Stefan Richter Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Manish Katiyar , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c Message-ID: <20090216141917.GA8981@elte.hu> References: <20090215184752.GA4970@uranus.ravnborg.org> <4999650C.6030700@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216132822.GC17996@elte.hu> <4999717F.7090205@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4999717F.7090205@s5r6.in-berlin.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stefan Richter wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Stefan Richter wrote: > >> Furthermore, the changelog is bad (non-exiting in fact). > >> > >> The fact that the issues where discovered using checkpatch is absolutely > >> uninteresting. The changelog should describe /what/ is fixed, [...] > > > > The commit log definitely needs enhancements but it's not uninteresting > > at all what tools were used to arrive to a change. [...] if a > > good and acceptable commit results out of a tool's usage then that tool > > needs to be advertised some more.) > > Fine, then the author could mention it below the --- delimitor in the > patch posting. The changelog however, as annotation of the source > history, is not a billboard. We also don't describe for example that > a nice cup of hot Earl Grey or whatever was vital to the creation of a > patch. Well there's a difference between a nice cup of tea (that really has no direct connection to kernel development) and a tool that is in the Linux kernel specifically for the purpose of helping keep code clean, and that was used to come up with a cleanup. We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug or uncleanliness. We routinely mention checkpatch as well when it catches an uncleanliness in a submitted patch. It is absolutely fine to mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already got merged. I dont understand your point. Ingo