On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 18:53 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:50:33AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 17:14 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > +if ($file) { > > > + print <<EOL > > > +WARNING: Using --file mode. Please do not send patches to linux-kernel > > > +that change whole existing files if you did not significantly change most > > > +of the the file for other reasons anyways or just wrote the file newly > > > +from scratch. Pure code style patches have a significant cost in a > > > +quickly changing code base like Linux because they cause rejects > > > +with other changes. > > > +If you're sure you want to use whole file mode please use --file-force > > > +EOL > > > +; > > > + exit(1); > > > > Can't say I like this too much .. It sounds like your telling people to > > stop sending cleanup patches, which doesn't make much sense .. We want a > > clean kernel .. Or at least I do .. > > It is a simple pain/benefit issue. > Fixing the 25 errors and 13 warnings in kernel/profile.c may look > like an easy task but then we put additional burden on the 10 people > that have patches pending for this file.
This goes for all patches on kernel/profile.c tho .. If I make a big mod to kernel/profile.c, that will screw up anyone else who has patches for that file.. > It is the same reason why we do not run a 'kill-trailing-whitespace' > on the full kernel tree. At least style clean ups at worst are file by file.. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/