From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] IB/core: Align coding style of ib_device_cap_flags structure Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:23:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20151223102349.GA3599@leon.nu> References: <1450606571-15877-1-git-send-email-leon@leon.nu> <1450606571-15877-2-git-send-email-leon@leon.nu> <20151221062252.GE3860@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <567A70C9.9090801@mellanox.com> Reply-To: leon-2ukJVAZIZ/Y@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <567A70C9.9090801-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Or Gerlitz Cc: Or Gerlitz , "ira.weiny" , Doug Ledford , linux-rdma , Leon Romanovsky List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.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 wrote: > >>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >>>>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>>>>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 8:22 AM, ira.weiny wrote: > >>>>>>On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>>>>>>From: Leon Romanovsky > >>>>>>>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