On 2/28/16 07:14, Jiri Kosina wrote: > 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. > Excuse me, when I sent this patch, I did not know who I shall send to, I have to reference to "./scripts/get_maintainer.pl". If any members have no time to care about it (every members' time are really expensive), please let me know (can reply directly). 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. > For me, I also guess, I am not the suitable member to do that (in fact, I dislike to do like that - "run checkpath -file" on "./include"). > 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. > Yes, the ultimate goal of CodingStyle is to have a kernel that is under control. For me, most of files in "./include" are common, simple, and shared files, which are not quite related with code analyzing (e.g. git log -p, or git blame), but they are read by others in most times. Is it correct? > 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. > For me, what you said above have effect on body files (in kernel, at least, more than 95% source files are body files, I guess). But in "./include", most of files are the interface inside and outside of our kernel, we need take more care about their coding styles. I often use vertical split window in vim in full screen mode to reading source code, when I read c source files, I often split window vertically for the related header files as reference. 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>