Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Sort headers alphabetically

From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Sort headers alphabetically
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:33:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZNpJXapjZcYqJqFG@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5eca0ab5-84be-2d8f-e0b3-c9fdfa961826@rasmusvillemoes.dk>

On Mon 2023-08-07 21:47:17, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 07/08/2023 16.58, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >> On Sat 2023-08-05 20:50:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> Sorting headers alphabetically helps locating duplicates, and
> >>> make it easier to figure out where to insert new headers.
> >>
> >> I agree that includes become a mess after some time. But I am
> >> not persuaded that sorting them alphabetically in random source
> >> files help anything.
> >>
> >> Is this part of some grand plan for the entire kernel, please?
> >> Is this outcome from some particular discussion?
> >> Will this become a well know rule checked by checkpatch.pl?
> >>
> >> I am personally not going to reject patches because of wrongly
> >> sorted headers unless there is some real plan behind it.
> >>
> >> I agree that it might look better. An inverse Christmas' tree
> >> also looks better. But it does not mean that it makes the life
> >> easier.
> > 
> > It does from my point of view as maintainability is increased.
> > 
> >> The important things are still hidden in the details
> >> (every single line).
> >>
> >> From my POV, this patch would just create a mess in the git
> >> history and complicate backporting.
> >>
> >> I am sorry but I will not accept this patch unless there
> >> is a wide consensus that this makes sense.
> > 
> > Your choice, of course, But I see in practice dup headers being
> > added, or some unrelated ones left untouched because header list
> > mess, and in those cases sorting can help (a bit) in my opinion.
> 
> I agree with Andy on this one. There doesn't need to be some grand
> master plan to apply this to the entire kernel, but doing it to
> individual files bit by bit does increase the maintainability. And I
> really don't buy the backporting argument. Sure, backporting some patch
> across the release that does the sorting is harder - but then,
> backporting the sorting patch itself is entirely trivial (maybe not the
> textual part, but redoing the semantics of it is). _However_,
> backporting a patch from release z to release y, both of which being
> later than the release x that did the sorting, is going to be _easier_.
> It also reduces merge conflicts - that's also why lots of Makefiles are
> kept sorted.

I am afraid that we will not find a consensus here. I agree that
the sorting has some advantage.

But I would still like to get some wider agreement on this move
from other subsystem. It is a good candidate for a mass change
which would be part of some plan.

I want to avoid reshuffling this more times according to personal
preferences. And I do not want to add this cosmetic subsystem
specific requirement.

Best Regards,
Petr