On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote: >> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> From: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >>>> classes: >>>> >>>> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >>>> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >>>> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be >>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so >>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code. >>> >>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. >>> >>> >> >> Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I >> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I >> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] >> from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) >> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I >> misunderstand from that reply? >> >> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next >> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the >> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did >> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term >> maintenance type work. > > The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me. > "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad > explanation in my view. It is much better to say "This file does not > adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it > into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely, > make changes as follows." > > So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes > themselves. Aha. That makes much more sense to me. Sorry if I was being a bit dense; I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer. Thanks for being patient :). -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
