On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 11:47:33AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> First and foremost, don't pack a large pile of unrelated changes into one large
> patch, as such a patch is annoyingly difficult to review and apply, e.g. this will
> conflict with other in-flight changes.
>
> Second, generally speaking, the value added by cleanups like this aren't worth
> the churn to the code, e.g. it pollutes git blame.
>
> Third, checkpatch is not the ultimately authority, e.g. IMO there's value in
> explicitly initializing nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio to zero because it shows
> that it's *intentionally* zero for real-time kernels.
>
> I'm all for opportunistically cleaning up existing messes when touching adjacent
> code, or fixing specific issues if they're causing actual problems, e.g. actively
> confusing readers. But doing a wholesale cleanup based on what checkpatch wants
> isn't going to happen.
I think you should can this reply as is and paste it each time stuff
like that comes up. This is exactly what I'm preaching each time but
explained much better than me.
I'd even ask you for permission to quote it each time I get such
"cleanup" patches. :-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
