Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] IB/core: Align coding style of ib_device_cap_flags structure

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-2ukJVAZIZ/Y@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 9:53 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon-2ukJVAZIZ/Y@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon-2ukJVAZIZ/Y@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>>>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:22 AM, ira.weiny <ira.weiny-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >>>>>>>From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> >>>>>>>Modify enum ib_device_cap_flags such that other patches which add new
> >>>>>>>enum values pass strict checkpatch.pl checks.
> >>>>>>>-     IB_DEVICE_RESERVED              = (1<<16), /* old SEND_W_INV */
> >>>>>>>-     IB_DEVICE_MEM_WINDOW            = (1<<17),
> >>>>>>>+     IB_DEVICE_RESIZE_MAX_WR         = (1 << 0),
> >>>>>2. Change the whole file => the work with "git blame" will be less
> >>>>>straightforward.
> >>>>Agree.
> >>>>
> >>>>Leon, I don't think we need to take checkpatch-ing of things to that level.
> >>>>
> >>>>Indeed, we should make sure that whole new enums and such are done right --
> >>>>but avoid touching core structs/enums in a manner that disallows
> >>>>simple git blaming of things, which is very useful for new comers and
> >>>>old suffers.
> >>>There are no doubts that standalone fixing checkpatch errors is more
> >>>suitable to staging subsystem.
> >>Agree
> >>
> >>>In our case, it is part of coming changes in that structure. such
> >>>change serves specific goal to minimize the possibility of error
> >>>by seeing clean output from static analyser tool.
> >>Disagree.
> >>
> >>What future bugs are you envisioning by let this 10y old header file
> >>keep having some checkpatch issues on few of the major enums?!
> >If I knew the future, I would be able to answer.
> 
> Use your common-sense and experience and maybe even some credit that you can
> give to the 10x larger and super active networking community, you should be
> able to provide some answer if you believe this is the  right way to go.
My common-sense and experience suggest me that the proposed patch
doesn't worth investing so much time. I'll drop it in the next version
of this patchset.

> 
> >I think that you expressed your opinion very clearly, let's wait for Doug's response on such changes.
> >
> 
> I expressed my opinion and I ask you Qs. Christoph also made more comments,
> if you think this is the way to go, respond.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html