Re: [PATCH 00/34] address various checkpatch.pl requirements

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 5:37 PM Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/8/23 01:22, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
> > As the MD RAID  subsystem is in active maintenance receiving
> > functional enhancements still, it is
> > hardly old in general,
>
> I might use the inappropriate word, let's say the 'existing' code.
> And I am not against use checkpatch (all the new patches
> should be checked by it I believe).
>
> > profits from coding (style) enhancements and
> > adoption of current APIs.
>
> This kind of patchset can also bring troubles, eg, people works
> for downstream kernel need more effort to backport fix patches
> due to conflict, I assume stable kernel could be affected as well.
>
> A more sensible way might be fix coding style issue while the
> adjacent code need to be changed because of new feature or bug
> etc. Anyway, just my 0.02$.

Agreed. These 1032 insertions(+) will make git-blame harder for
little benefit in style.

Thanks,
Song




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux