Re: [PATCH 06/20] mem_class: use minor as index instead of searching the array

Greg KH
2009-09-15T21:22:35Z

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:18:11PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:24 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:07:09PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 21:46 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 21:42, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:12 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > >> +static const struct memdev {
> > > > >> + const char *name;
> > > > >> + const struct file_operations *fops;
> > > > >> + struct backing_dev_info *dev_info;
> > > > >> +} devlist[] = {
> > > > >> + [ 1] = { "mem", &mem_fops, &directly_mappable_cdev_bdi },
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch has several checkpatch errors wrt. the spacing used in the
> > > > > array index..
> > > > >
> > > > > Kay, can you send a follow up patch to correct them?
> > > >
> > > > I think they are fine, and properly aligned to be best readable.
> > >
> > > We already have a coding style in Linux which doesn't allow this type of
> > > alignment .. If we allowed everyone to pick their own coding style we
> > > would have a pretty ugly looking kernel.. That's why the checkpatch tool
> > > was create to test for style conformance.. If you feel strongly about
> > > this alignment you could change checkpatch not to warn on this , but I
> > > don't think it's likely a change like that would be accepted..
> >
> > I explicitly ignored the checkpatch warnings here, as Kay is right, it
> > does look better and is more sane with the way he wrote it.
> >
> > Remember, checkpatch.pl is a _guide_ not a
> > hard-and-fast-rule-or-else-puppies-will-get-hurt type of a thing.
> >
> > The whole reason for having a consistant coding style is so your brain
> > gets used to patterns and you can see the context of the code instead.
> > It's a proven thing. Arguing that removing that space makes it easier
> > to understand and maintain over time is illogical.
>
> I agree It can depend on context , but I don't agree that it's needed
> here..
>
> In this case space or no space it really doesn't matter, since half the
> lines are spaced with ifdefs ..
>
> So it boils down to just these lines,
>
> + [ 5] = { "zero", &zero_fops, &zero_bdi },
> + [ 6] = { "full", &full_fops, NULL },
> + [ 7] = { "random", &random_fops, NULL },
> + [ 9] = { "urandom", &urandom_fops, NULL },
> + [11] = { "kmsg", &kmsg_fops, NULL },
>
> or properly formatted like this,
>
> + [5] = { "zero", &zero_fops, &zero_bdi },
> + [6] = { "full", &full_fops, NULL },
> + [7] = { "random", &random_fops, NULL },
> + [9] = { "urandom", &urandom_fops, NULL },
> + [11] = { "kmsg", &kmsg_fops, NULL },
>
> I don't see a stark difference. Now you have to contend with the fact
> that checkpatch spews errors on these lines .. If your going to allow
> errors you better be getting your moneys worth since you'll have to
> defend them , and ignore patches to clean them up.

I'll gladly do that, it's trival for me to do so.

thanks,

greg k-h