Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13:55AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> There is simply no excuse for ever having let that crap get there 
> into fs/proc/base.c. There is no excuse for ever letting that crap 
> grow. The fact that that crap is there is proof of systemic failure 
> over the years to keep that code clean.

Nothing like proof by assertion, eh?

> I dont really want to see "real work" done on code that was not 
> properly and cleanly finished in the first place.

Tough.  At the moment we have a rather unpleasant hole with tentative fix
that touches fs/proc/base.c.  Whether you want said work postponed until all
whitespace wanking is done on file in question or not, I simply don't give
a damn - getting rid of real bug takes precedence.  Whitespace crap should
be dealt with as we go through the functions containing such crap, religious
bullshit nonwithstanding.

And I very much object against completely unfounded assertions claiming
that checkpatch noise makes a useful proxy for code quality.  You keep
making those again and again, without a shred of evidence to show.