From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:11:07 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Joe Perches Message-ID: <20160914170536.77fkhyiyikxc6jab@piout.net> References: <20160913194520.GA8071@cloud> <20160913140322.3ccad27c@lwn.net> <4691924.fimvUkKjuv@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160914020332.GA9558@cloud> <1473819862.32273.16.camel@perches.com> <1473834432.32273.21.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1473834432.32273.21.camel@perches.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] checkpatch/Codingstyle and trivial patch spam List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 13/09/2016 at 23:27:12 -0700, Joe Perches wrote : > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 07:57 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > What types of changes are unacceptable? > > It's a mixed bag. > > Some maintainers reject all "style/whitespace changes". > Some maintainers reject global consistency patches like > int -> bool conversions. > Some maintainers reject literal -> #define changes like > 1 -> true and 0 -> false for booleans. > > Some of those maintainers are IMO misguided. On my side, I usually take that kind of changes only when they come with other substantial changes, especially when the code hasn't been touched for a while. The other thing that I find annoying are people using Coccinnelle or any other static code analysis tool and sending patches without saying how they found the alleged bug. Sometimes, this results in pointless cleanups that haven't been tested by the patch author. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com