On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:58 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > While discussing how to format the addition of various function > > attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as > > close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference. > > > > (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and > > others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.) > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > While I appreciate you getting the ball across the finish line (having > _any_ documentation to point to in future bikesheds), I can't help but > shake the feeling that the chosen policy will harm the ability of > existing automated code formatting tools from being able to automate > code formatting on the kernel. Why would documenting the expected format have an affect on tools not being able to follow that exact expected format? Are we defining a format that is somehow impossible for them to use? If anything I would think that now we have a format that the tools can actually follow, while before it was semi-random as to what to pick as the "one true way". What am I missing here? thanks, greg k-h
