From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7C918D9 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from saturn.retrosnub.co.uk (saturn.retrosnub.co.uk [178.18.118.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D9F22D for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:33:31 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <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> <20160914170536.77fkhyiyikxc6jab@piout.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Jonathan Cameron Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:33:22 +0100 To: Alexandre Belloni , Joe Perches Message-ID: 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 14 September 2016 18:11:07 BST, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >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. As a maintainer who gets a lot of patches from newbies (partly as I maintain a fair set of staging patches but also as we have a steady stream of new drivers in IIO) I am quite happy to take 'good' whitespace cleanups. Most of the time I can find something deeper to point out in the driver and get them moving up the food chain. Personally I think it is worth the pain in recent driver code at least as the advantage of pulling someone new in outweighs the costs. Probably helps that IIO has a fair sized group of reviewers many of whom help out with advice to newbies. Hence I have it easy :) Just thought I'd add a positive viewpoint. Jonathan -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.