From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753539AbbCEAG5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:06:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35741 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751455AbbCEAGz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:06:55 -0500 Message-ID: <54F79DF6.60204@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0700 From: Al Stone User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: al.stone@linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, robert.moore@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c References: <1424824585-6405-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <1528624.HcuCny6IaW@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F79B9C.1030901@redhat.com> <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <3363575.FHEZ9Qjrf1@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote: >> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Al Stone >>>> >>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >>>> classes: >>>> >>>> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >>>> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >>>> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone >>> >>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be >>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so >>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code. >>> >>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. >>> >>> >> >> Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I >> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I >> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] >> from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) >> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I >> misunderstand from that reply? >> >> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next >> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the >> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did >> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term >> maintenance type work. > > The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me. > "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad > explanation in my view. It is much better to say "This file does not > adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it > into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely, > make changes as follows." > > So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes > themselves. Aha. That makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I was being a bit dense; I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer. Thanks for being patient :). -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@redhat.com -----------------------------------