On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Chen Gang wrote: > > Mel, as an MM developer, has already NACK'ed the patch, which means > > you should not send the patch to **any** upstream maintainer for > > inclusion. > > I don't think I "should not ...". I only care about correctness and > contribution, I don't care about any members ideas and their thinking. > When we have different ideas or thinking, we need discuss. If by "discuss" you mean "30+ email thread about where to put a line break", please drop me from CC next time this discussion is going to happen. Thanks. > For common shared header files, for me, we should really take more care > about the coding styles. > > - If the common shared header files don't care about the coding styles, > I guess any body files will have much more excuses for "do not care > about coding styles". > > - That means our kernel whole source files need not care about coding > styles at all!! > > - It is really really VERY BAD!! > > If someone only dislike me to send the related patches, I suggest: Let > another member(s) "run checkpatch -file" on the whole "./include" sub- > directory, and fix all coding styles issues. Which is exactly what you shouldn't do. The ultimate goal of the Linux kernel is not 100% strict complicance to the CodingStyle document no matter what. The ultimate goal is to have a kernel that is under control. By polluting git blame, you are taking on aspect of the "under control" away. Common sense needs to be used; horribly terrible coding style needs to be fixed, sure. Is 82-characters long line horribly terrible coding style? No, it's not. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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>