From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49709) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ujmga-0000ho-9C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:33:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UjmgV-0000HT-82 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:33:44 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]:58484) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UjmgV-0000HI-0i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:33:39 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fn20so1427022lab.14 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:33:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <392488894.3387176.1370331261300.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> References: <1370272838-15373-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <51AD9226.4010900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <392488894.3387176.1370331261300.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:33:16 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] e1000: cleanup process_tx_desc List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andrew Jones Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jesse Larrew , stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com On 4 June 2013 08:34, Andrew Jones wrote: > I could send a v2 that fixes the 1 error and 2 warnings found in the context > of this patch, but why? It's out of the scope of the patch (although I did > use "cleanup" in the summary...), and it would hardly make a dent in this > file's problems. The idea is that we gradually bring the code closer into line with QEMU's standards by (a) not allowing in new code which doesn't follow the rules and (b) fixing old code where it is in areas which a patch touches. This gradually ratchets up the quality overall without being huge "touch every line in a file" patches (which reduce the functionality of git blame, among other things). It really isn't a very onerous requirement in my opinion. thanks -- PMM