Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:41:24 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface |
| |
* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > + if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) { > > > > and you pushed that piece of code upstream, and you called > > checkpatch a religion - so apparently you were not using that > > tool and apparently you think it's fine to push such changes > > upstream. > > The discussion started about something else - a piece of > non-compilable proposal code you space reviewed and didn't even > notice wasn't compileable or sane. > > I'm sort of amused you went back through my commits to find that > example, and its certainly one that should have been fixed in the > final submit. I can't be bothered to write a perl script to > checkpatch all your commits and I suspect they all pass anyway.
FYI, it took me less than 10 seconds to find that commit, i didnt have to go to any trouble or perl script - i just searched for the same bad pattern i saw here.
You should consider putting in some automation into your workflow if you have some time - it really helps. I was surprised how much easily fixable crap various measures of automation found in my own patches. The tools are there to use them, not to ignore, ridicule or fight them, and for kernel oldbies there's absolutely no valid excuse to not use them IMHO.
It's a bit sad you are making such a big deal out of my criticism though. Your criticism about the x86/MTRR code was spot on, mind doing some more review on arch/x86/?
Ingo
| |