From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760054AbWLHU3k (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:29:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761174AbWLHU3k (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:29:40 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]:33615 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760054AbWLHU3j (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:29:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:29:21 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Rocky Craig Cc: minyard@acm.org, Linux Kernel , OpenIPMI Developers Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] IPMI: Fix BT long busy Message-Id: <20061208122921.5c30d543.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <457962BF.5050202@hp.com> References: <20061202043921.GG30531@localdomain> <20061203132636.a7ac969d.akpm@osdl.org> <457962BF.5050202@hp.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:03:59 -0700 Rocky Craig wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > >In fact, please don't write macros. > > > > > I see them all over the place (i.e., EXPORT_SYMBOL) so the request > is a little confusing to me... It's a general principle. Sometimes they're unavoidable. Other times they are avoidable but people add them anyway. > > Please don't write macros which require that the caller have a particular > > > >local variable of a particular name. > > > > > I could understand that, even if some people did agree with my desire > to increase legibility by decreasing visual clutter. I think it also > provides > some protection against typos in argument lists. > > I'm (naively) curious as to why it's being flagged now as opposed to > two years ago when I submitted the original additions. It probably didn't get noticed. Some of the stuff we have in there is unbelieveable. > Have reviewers or review methods changed? > > Have standards changed? We have become more vigilant over time. > Did it just slip under someone's radar two years ago? I'd say so, yes.