From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396CDC4363A for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:23:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5482083B for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:23:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bgdev-pl.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bgdev-pl.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="PwyldEAv" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730229AbgJHNX0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:23:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46438 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725882AbgJHNXZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:23:25 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x141.google.com (mail-il1-x141.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::141]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C9AC061755 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x141.google.com with SMTP id t7so4410198ilf.10 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bgdev-pl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5p9In3c0U7T6cVuoZBmWzXApSWOi+BckNf5ncuvNs8I=; b=PwyldEAvIJgXJSsl5CHzKf5lUZLC079HI2xVpd53hlK7EOH0HlVGE+yk8MyWaWw4f9 +PKdgtgeX3mySa1ihAZLprRrUdKSVn8xw5+G/IT/8LePaE0XqXyCce5USvAmFGSxHW7d hMZ1279le+2NGukSQtrUksNET99cLc/BAl23ALfXWdeHL1nxyg2TxqaVuekOzOwdq2ee dYfUtBNnfoCSVVME7Irmquv20CwvWboAZ5jDrdQkJD7jj8MLcHRd7+y5Fs1PWvoghuSK ff0D3OFYB1c7LmxfjnVa2d1mfDl2ZWgJghJAy27E9NjdcT208zSHJbWhkBWGXc7L0pib aPSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5p9In3c0U7T6cVuoZBmWzXApSWOi+BckNf5ncuvNs8I=; b=R/aUmiyaAjV+B0i++trJ5yyP+ABQSOWygIc7etLnigHby4KG1O3uN9yzNnpvMj+IKu Sz8xtDBQSJ859uAI6oRq2Ox8d99uw7EwOtTC1dV6DquOlu6GSYRvtc3dw5t5K/3rFlYr aTNTyyKGbOxwU22wTS4I+gkKZUmyNlsyRTGpnEfX8F6MmhzFX0AtXNqrsikq/4BDplvc ZWuIjjlmhIct+V7Xa3/BCpsOYnIxXUhc8BZmMXB0A0YB6U7nddGTItvCBmN85i1tB3wU o0PiU3c7PxT3jjtUr5+bnRtJ2Fls339RbOkCr8DcextAXx9ekcPystO4kc8rcHTEGh3e Ee8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5332kUDgb3tyn8B1reZbxjw5rMLBX8N0OOrXXy7guKB77GLhQMPR Hyeu6CXC94nIGPj1ZHed08CQFO7BHWIjdzFMXtJr/fRN9RE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBReT8TYP778m2wzzvAexq5aDCjIVSwwsS2AoRcS8u7BvEdURFzqwqNIShLoctFgA4VvqIqKZz2HIosFKFcVU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f10:: with SMTP id x16mr6401998ilj.220.1602163402746; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 06:23:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200924124526.17365-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200924124526.17365-3-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20201007134323.GA764@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20201007134323.GA764@lst.de> From: Bartosz Golaszewski Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:23:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] samples: configfs: order includes alphabetically To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Joel Becker , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Bartosz Golaszewski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:43 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski > > > > The preferred coding style is to order all includes alphabetically for > > improved readability. There's no need for the configfs header to come > > last. > > Is it? People seem to have all kinds of weird opinions, but I don't > think any ordering really makes sense. What does make sense it dropping > the pointless empty line, so I've folded that into the next patch. This is not just a baseless opinion, keeping headers sorted clearly has an advantage: you more easily avoid duplicating includes, you see right away if a header is already included or not. Many maintainers will require ordering in new patches. It's your call but it's better code with not much effort. Bartosz