Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: x86: selftests: Set up AMD VM in pmu_counters_test

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025, Colton Lewis wrote:
> > > +static void test_core_counters(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	uint8_t nr_counters = nr_core_counters();
> > > +	bool core_ext = kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PERF_CTR_EXT_CORE);
> > > +	bool perfmon_v2 = kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PERFMON_V2);
> > > +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > +	struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > > +
> > > +	for (uint8_t ce = 0; ce <= core_ext; ce++) {
> 
> > Kernel style is to not declared variables inside for-loops.
> 
> I ran it through checkpatch and it didn't complain.

...


> > > +					vcpu_set_cpuid_property(
> 
> > Google3!  (Never, ever wrap immediately after the opening paranethesis).
> 
> Checkpatch didn't complain.

Checkpatch is a perl script, not sentient AI.  It's nothing more than a tool to
help detect common goofs, typos, egregious flaws, etc.  The absense of checkpatch
warnings/errors does not mean a patch has no issues.  Coding style in particular
is quite subjective and prone to "exceptions to the rule", which makes is especially
hard to "enforce" via checkpatch.

As explained in Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst, what matters most is consistency:

  A code base as large as the kernel requires some uniformity of code to make it
  possible for developers to quickly understand any part of it.  So there is no
  longer room for strangely-formatted code.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.0/process/4.Coding.html#coding-style