Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:16:16 +0400 | | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | | Subject | Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be |
| |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:49:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> 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.
|  |