From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Morris Subject: Re: RFC : [PATCH] IPV6: checkpatch whitespace corrections Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: <53EF1AD0.7080704@chirality.org.uk> References: <1407960167-9437-1-git-send-email-ipm@chirality.org.uk> <1407970011.2683.9.camel@joe-AO725> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches Return-path: Received: from inet-gw.chirality.org.uk ([88.97.209.22]:42745 "EHLO oak.chirality.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751058AbaHPIsV (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2014 04:48:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1407970011.2683.9.camel@joe-AO725> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Many thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. Accordingly I will break the patch into better structured parts and submit. On 13/08/14 23:46, Joe Perches wrote: > 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 > > >