Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:25:40 +0100
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:49:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
This is evidence of code that triggers checkpatch.pl complaints. Which
is not something holy.
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.
You and your... adherents have crammed into CodingStyle enough to make a mere
reference to it just about worthless. There *are* serious things in there.
And there's a lot of generally indifferent "well, it's usually better to..."
stuff. checkpatch.pl makes no distinction and neither do you, apparently.
"There's at least one place in CodingStyle this line doesn't match" is worth
*nothing*. That's what you get after years of devaluation.
It might be perfectly fine code otherwise, i made no assertion about
the quality of other code in that area.
Otherwise or elsewhere? You keep using "runs afoul of something in the
current incarnation of CodingStyle" as evidence of low quality. I see no
empirical evidence for such correlation. AFAICT, you are actually redefining
code quality in an arbitrary way, then wave hands muttering "unclean, unclean"
and expect that substitution of notions will pass unnoticed...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Alexey Dobriyan
- Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Al Viro
- Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Al Viro
- Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- From: Ingo Molnar
- fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 7/9] perf_counter: make it possible for hw_perf_counter_init to return error codes
- Next by Date: [git pull] Please pull powerpc.git merge branch
- Previous by thread: Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- Next by thread: Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
