From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active_balance()
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 18:52:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjimh7tyyk.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home>
On 07/05/20 18:30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
>> > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
>> > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
>> > pick it up...
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the check to not warn on 0/1
>> of boolean. Why is this a warning?
>
> If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
> an issue.
>
I don't disagree. To play devil's advocate, AFAICT that one coccinelle script
is part of the kernel tree, so some folks may think it worth to reduce the
warnings we get from those.
To give my side of things, this one felt a bit like the
"s/borked/broken/" patches that folks send out because they have a
spellcheck linter, i.e. the change is purely cosmetic. But yeah, I suppose
less gunk to go through via git blame is preferable.
> -- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-07 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-07 11:06 [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active_balance() Jason Yan
2020-05-07 11:17 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-05-07 17:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-05-07 17:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-05-07 17:52 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-05-07 17:55 ` Joe Perches
2020-05-07 18:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-05-07 19:06 ` Joe Perches
2020-05-07 19:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-05-07 20:18 ` Joe Perches
2020-05-08 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-08 9:06 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2020-05-08 9:24 ` Julia Lawall
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=jhjimh7tyyk.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yanaijie@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).