<div><div>On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Greg Freemyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:greg.freemyer@gmail.com" target="_blank">greg.freemyer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Eugene Voronkov<br>
<<a href="mailto:eugene.voronkov@gmail.com">eugene.voronkov@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I watched Kroah-Hartman's video[1] on submitting patches where he walks<br>
> through the process of fixing coding style. I feel like this would be a<br>
> good way for me to jump into the process but I need more information. At<br>
> what point do code style patches stop being more trouble then they're worth<br>
> to the maintainers? For example, running <a href="http://checkpatch.pl" target="_blank">checkpatch.pl</a> against all files is<br>
> showing around 3 non-trivial style violations per file. Would a patch<br>
> fixing 12 violations across 4 files be worth submitting?<br>
><br>
> 1. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLBrBBImJt4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLBrBBImJt4</a><br>
<br>
</div></div>Before spending time on this, read the email on the ext4 list from a<br>
couple weeks ago.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=135048406513682&w=2" target="_blank">http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=135048406513682&w=2</a><br>
<br>
Basically pure <a href="http://checkpatch.pl" target="_blank">checkpatch.pl</a> generated patches are discouraged by a<br>
lot of maintainers.<br>
<br>
They break existing out of tree patches that people may be working on.<br>
<br>
The solution is to use <a href="http://checkpatch.pl" target="_blank">checkpatch.pl</a> when you are already working in a<br>
relevant code area.<br>
<br>
Then it becomes:<br>
<br>
0/2 This is a patch series to fix such and such bug<br>
1/2 <a href="http://checkpatch.pl" target="_blank">checkpatch.pl</a> patch to clean up the formatting of the files I'm working on.<br>
2/2 patch to fix the bug<br>
<br>
I see that sequence all the time and the checkpatch cleanup is always taken.<br>
<br>
But a sequence of purely checkpatch cleanups will likely be rejected.<br>
<br>
fyi: Robert Day just asked for help cleaning up the Doc Book stuff.<br>
<br>
Doc Book pull comments out of the .c files and creates documentation.<br>
To clean it up, patches to the source files will be required. These<br>
are more likely to be accepted.<br>
<br>
So you could to a doc book series like:<br>
<br>
0/2 a patch series to correct the documentation for xyz subsystem<br>
1/2 checkpatch cleanup of the 2 files with doc updates<br>
2/2 doc updates<br>
<br>
That pairing may actually get accepted. (I can't say I remember it<br>
being tried.)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Greg<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div><div>Yea, seems like they would cause more problems than they solve.<div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the heads up. I've been looking at those.</div></div></div>