From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753368AbbJNBSO (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:18:14 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0250.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.250]:39867 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752744AbbJNBSL (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:18:11 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2559:2562:2693:2731:2828:2892:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6261:6742:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13149:13230:13311:13357:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: sense51_46f66aaf2b046 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2299 Message-ID: <1444785486.9184.40.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks. From: Joe Perches To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Janusz Wolak , 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 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:18:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com> References: <1444772362-25090-1-git-send-email-januszwolak@awokados.com.pl> <1444772362-25090-5-git-send-email-januszwolak@awokados.com.pl> <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:18:06 -0700 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 5/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks. In-Reply-To: <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com> References: <1444772362-25090-1-git-send-email-januszwolak@awokados.com.pl> <1444772362-25090-5-git-send-email-januszwolak@awokados.com.pl> <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1444785486.9184.40.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: 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.