Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > Well i noticed such details in your final commits that go upstream 
> > as well - you dont appear to be making full use of the patch quality 
> > tools we have.
> 
> Quite often deliberately. A lot of the tty patches keep whatever 
> style they are patching. You'll then see a single big patch to 
> clean the style of the entire file up instead of creating the 
> horrible mishmashes of styles found in some of the code.

That's a really broken method IMO, as you basically allow crap (and 
get used to allowing crap) instead of just saying: "no crap from me 
from today on, ever".

Your method leads to stuff like this in a recent commit:

| commit a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e
| Author: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
| Date:   Fri Jan 2 13:46:50 2009 +0000
|
|     tty: Introduce some close helpers for ports

+       if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {
+               printk(KERN_WARNING
+                   "tty_port_close_start: tty->count = 1 port count = %d.\n",
+                                                               port->count);
+               port->count = 1;
+       }
+       if (--port->count < 0) {
+               printk(KERN_WARNING "tty_port_close_start: count = %d\n",
+                                                               port->count);
+               port->count = 0;
+       }

Look at how the first branch does 'if( ' while the second one does 
the proper 'if ('. It literally hurts the eye - and if it does not 
hurt yours it better should ;-)

There is absolutely no justification for stuff like that. It is not 
about 'preserving the existing style' - it's inconsistent style in 
the same hunk.

Also note the inconsistent printk-ing lines, mutiliated by line 
warps. The use of pr_warning() would solve it:

+       if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {
+               pr_warning("tty_port_close_start: tty->count = 1 port count = %d.\n", port->count);
+               port->count = 1;
+       }
+       if (--port->count < 0) {
+               pr_warning("tty_port_close_start: count = %d\n", port->count);
+               port->count = 0;
+       }

'Allow crap now, we'll fix it later' is a bad policy IMHO. New code 
(or old code moved into a new spot) added should always be nice. 

Note, there are occasional bogus checkpatch warnings and borderline 
cases (as with any tool - for example it will emit a col-80 warning 
about my pr_warning() example above and that warning should be 
ignored), where checkpatch should be ignored - but this is not one 
of them.

	Ingo