On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 13:20 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:01:19AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > 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.. > > Obviously, but why make it worse? And what's more important? A > "clean tree" (especially when some of the things that checkpatch.pl > flag are arbitrary and Not All That Important), or wasting developers' > time invalidating potentially huge number of patches thanks to cleanup > patches?
What I was saying in my first email was we can throttle "patches" arbitrarily (I think Andrew/Linus even have a merge period for these types of patches) .. So that's not the issue .. I feel style clean ups are fundamentally good.. So what we don't want to do is discourage the creation of good patches, which is what I think Andi is doing.. If there's something in checkpatch.pl that you think is "Not All That Important", than send a patch to remove those cases and we can discuss that directly.. I'm not saying the tool is perfect.. 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/
