From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756654AbZGCKWy (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:22:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753409AbZGCKWp (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:22:45 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43894 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753093AbZGCKWo (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 06:22:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:22:34 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface Message-ID: <20090703102234.GA32128@elte.hu> References: <20090702113529.4896.2321.stgit@t61.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703064518.GA30674@elte.hu> <20090703100834.6cb241b6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703091655.GB3902@elte.hu> <20090703104459.1d9d0bbf@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703095432.GC21141@elte.hu> <20090703110620.64fd1283@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090703110620.64fd1283@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > > Your method leads to stuff like this in a recent commit: > > Which is a cut and paste of code from the originals into the > helper. and this changes my points how? It's not like it's hard to fix, and the code is moved non-trivially anyway, it's better to have it nicer if we touch it anyway. > > Also note the inconsistent printk-ing lines, mutiliated by line > > warps. The use of pr_warning() would solve it: > > Send patches if it bugs you that much. [...] I find that a rather flippant attitude to kernel code quality issues. Also, isnt it a double standard: why should newbies be held to higher standards than you hold yourself to? Please just fix problems like everyone else is expected to fix it too and you wont get such review feedback. Ingo