On 2023-04-11 22:19:21 GMT+02:00, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Aleksa Savic wrote: >> On 2023-04-10 18:53:08 GMT+02:00, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> I am not sure I understand how this would improve readability. >>> It seems to accomplish the opposite. Sure, I know, checkpatch --strict >>> complains, but that is still better than unreadable code just to make >>> checkpatch happy. >>> >>> Guenter >> >> Both seemed fine to me, the idea was to fix the checkpatch warning. >> If it's OK for it to complain about this, plus the changes would make it >> harder to read, please ignore this patch. >> > > checkpatch is useful, but not in situations where following its guidance > results in code which is diffficult to read. I run checkpatch --strict when > applying patches, so I do notice when it complains. If I want a report > to be addressed, I'll say that (such as, for example, when people are > overly generous with empty lines). If not, you can assume that I am ok with > the report and find it more important to have readable code than being > checkpatch-clean. > > Guenter That clears it up, thanks! Aleksa
