All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc: Janusz Wolak <januszwolak@awokados.com.pl>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com,
	shannon.nelson@intel.com, carolyn.wyborny@intel.com,
	donald.c.skidmore@intel.com, matthew.vick@intel.com,
	john.ronciak@intel.com, mitch.a.williams@intel.com,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Janusz Wolak <januszvdm@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:18:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1444785486.9184.40.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com>

On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 15:23 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Please don't just blindly 
> follow checkpatch as it can give out erroneous information.
> 
> Looking over most of this patch series it seems like it is taking 
> readability in the wrong direction and reducing the ability to maintain 
> the driver since this code has been "maintenance only" for some time 
> now.  If somebody comes up with a legitimate fix for an issue at some 
> point in the future they will need to work around these patches in order 
> to back-port it into a stable release and that just hurts maintainability.
> 
> I'd say this whole series should be rejected on the grounds that this 
> driver is mostly stable and should only really be modified for bug fixes 
> at this point.  If we really need to go through and do a checkpatch 
> sweep we should probably just focus on serious errors only instead of 
> going astray and chasing down things that are false hits or minor issues 
> that are mostly a matter of preference.

Excellent advice.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 5/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:18:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1444785486.9184.40.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com>

On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 15:23 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Please don't just blindly 
> follow checkpatch as it can give out erroneous information.
> 
> Looking over most of this patch series it seems like it is taking 
> readability in the wrong direction and reducing the ability to maintain 
> the driver since this code has been "maintenance only" for some time 
> now.  If somebody comes up with a legitimate fix for an issue at some 
> point in the future they will need to work around these patches in order 
> to back-port it into a stable release and that just hurts maintainability.
> 
> I'd say this whole series should be rejected on the grounds that this 
> driver is mostly stable and should only really be modified for bug fixes 
> at this point.  If we really need to go through and do a checkpatch 
> sweep we should probably just focus on serious errors only instead of 
> going astray and chasing down things that are false hits or minor issues 
> that are mostly a matter of preference.

Excellent advice.


  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-14  1:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-13 21:39 [PATCH 1/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39 ` [PATCH 2/6] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39 ` [PATCH 3/6] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39 ` [PATCH 4/6] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39 ` [PATCH 5/6] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 22:23   ` Alexander Duyck
2015-10-13 22:23     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Duyck
2015-10-14  1:18     ` Joe Perches [this message]
2015-10-14  1:18       ` Joe Perches
2015-10-14  5:37     ` Jeff Kirsher
2015-10-14  5:37       ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jeff Kirsher
2015-10-13 21:39 ` [PATCH 6/6] " Janusz Wolak
2015-10-13 21:39   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Janusz Wolak

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1444785486.9184.40.camel@perches.com \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=carolyn.wyborny@intel.com \
    --cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
    --cc=januszvdm@gmail.com \
    --cc=januszwolak@awokados.com.pl \
    --cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
    --cc=john.ronciak@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthew.vick@intel.com \
    --cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shannon.nelson@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.