On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Chen Gang wrote:
On 2/26/16 00:07, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 06:26:31AM +0800, chengang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I do not want this patch to go through the trivial tree. It still adds
another step to identifying relevant commits through git blame and has
limited, if any, benefit to maintainability.
"it's preferable to preserve blame than go through a layer of cleanup
when looking for the commit that defined particular flags".
git blame identifies what commit last altered a line. If a cleanup patch
is encountered then the tree before that commit needs to be examined
which adds time. It's rare that cleanup patches on their own are useful
and this is one of those cases.
git is a tool mainly for analyzing code, but not mainly for normal
reading main code.
So for me, the coding styles need not consider about git.
It is common to see reject of trivial coding style fixup patch here and
there. Those patches usually be merged for early stage files that only
few people read / write. However, for files that are old and lots of
people read and write, those patches are rejected in usual. I mean, the
negative opinions for this patches are usual in this community.
I agree that coding style is important and respect your effort. However,
because the code will be seen and written by most kernel hackers, the file
should be maintained to be easily readable and writable by most kernel
hackers, especially, maintainers. What I want to say is, we should
respect maintainers' opinion in usual.
As far as I remember, I have seen a document that saying same with others'
opinion but couldn't find it.
Thanks,
SeongJae Park
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang (陈刚)
Managing Natural Environments is the Duty of Human Beings.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>