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

[Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:49:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> The proof is what i quoted - see below the full dump again. Those 
> are bona fide evidence of unclean code.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> I am profoundly surprised that something as lightweight and simple 
> as a cleanup patch can make life difficult to you at all. How are 
> you handling them? Have you ever tried?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You dont have to take my word for it. Look at the output below. 
> Check the code. Compare to the CodingStyle. If it does not match, 
> then it's unclean code that should have been rejected when it got 
> there. Some of that is ancient code, some of that is recent code.
> 
> It might be perfectly fine code otherwise, i made no assertion about 
> the quality of other code in that area.
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> ---------------->
> ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
> #154: FILE: proc/base.c:154:

I'm finally convinced you do not understand what's going on in this
thread and previous threads on the subject and quitting. There will be
C/R stuff because I already promised and nothing more.