From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: RFC : [PATCH] IPV6: checkpatch whitespace corrections Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:46:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1407970011.2683.9.camel@joe-AO725> References: <1407960167-9437-1-git-send-email-ipm@chirality.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ian Morris Return-path: Received: from smtprelay0073.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.73]:42447 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752652AbaHMWqy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:46:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1407960167-9437-1-git-send-email-ipm@chirality.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 21:02 +0100, Ian Morris wrote: > I started looking at the ipv6 code to educate myself but in the process > noticed a fair few trivial checkpatch issues. There are some more interesting > ones also present but before tackling those I decided to try to reduce the > volume of output from checkpatch by fixing whitespace issues. Question is > are such patches wanted? Like most things, it depends. To make reviewing these patches easier, it's better to separate these changes into at least 2 patches. 1: Horizontal line whitespace changes where git diff -w can be shown to have no differences 2: Vertical line whitespace changes where newlines are only added or deleted. In both cases, scripts/objdiff should be run to show no compiler object output changes occur as well. In a quick scan, I don't see anything objectionable here. I'm not a big fan of the forced blank line between declarations and code though. You can get checkpatch to not emit those with --ignore=line_spacing