[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:49:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Al Viro <> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13:55AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > There is simply no excuse for ever having let that crap get there
> > > into fs/proc/base.c. There is no excuse for ever letting that crap
> > > grow. The fact that that crap is there is proof of systemic failure
> > > over the years to keep that code clean.
> >
> > Nothing like proof by assertion, eh?
> The proof is what i quoted - see below the full dump again. Those
> are bona fide evidence of unclean code.
> > > I dont really want to see "real work" done on code that was not
> > > properly and cleanly finished in the first place.
> >
> > Tough. At the moment we have a rather unpleasant hole with
> > tentative fix that touches fs/proc/base.c. Whether you want said
> > work postponed until all whitespace wanking is done on file in
> > question or not, I simply don't give a damn - getting rid of real
> > bug takes precedence. Whitespace crap should be dealt with as we
> > go through the functions containing such crap, religious bullshit
> > nonwithstanding.
> I am profoundly surprised that something as lightweight and simple
> as a cleanup patch can make life difficult to you at all. How are
> you handling them? Have you ever tried?
> > And I very much object against completely unfounded assertions
> > claiming that checkpatch noise makes a useful proxy for code
> > quality. You keep making those again and again, without a shred
> > of evidence to show.
> You dont have to take my word for it. Look at the output below.
> Check the code. Compare to the CodingStyle. If it does not match,
> then it's unclean code that should have been rejected when it got
> there. Some of that is ancient code, some of that is recent code.
> It might be perfectly fine code otherwise, i made no assertion about
> the quality of other code in that area.
> Ingo
> ---------------->
> ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
> #154: FILE: proc/base.c:154:

I'm finally convinced you do not understand what's going on in this
thread and previous threads on the subject and quitting. There will be
C/R stuff because I already promised and nothing more.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-31 00:11    [W:0.041 / U:7.640 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site