[PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c

[Al Stone]

On 03/04/2015 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote:
>> On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone at linaro.org wrote:
>>>> From: Al Stone <al.stone at linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from
>>>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl.  They fell into these
>>>> classes:
>>>>
>>>>    -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice
>>>>    -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same)
>>>>    -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone at linaro.org>
>>>
>>> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here.  You're trying to make the coding style be
>>> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel.
>>>
>>> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so
>>> it should not be used to justify changes in that code.
>>>
>>> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9].
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Okay, I'm puzzled.  In the last version of these patches, I asked if I
>> should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file.  I
>> understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0]
>> from checkpatch's point of view.  I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9])
>> and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did.  What did I
>> misunderstand from that reply?
>>
>> If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next
>> version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the
>> kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed.  I only did
>> the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term
>> maintenance type work.
> 
> The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me.
> "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad
> explanation in my view.  It is much better to say "This file does not
> adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it
> into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely,
> make changes as follows."
> 
> So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes
> themselves.

Aha.  That makes much more sense to me.  Sorry if I was being a bit dense;
I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer.  Thanks for being
patient :).

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3 at redhat.com
-----------------------------------