From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABD9C2D0C8 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16CF206A5 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="btmETCZP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729127AbfLLMKs (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:10:48 -0500 Received: from smtp-fw-33001.amazon.com ([207.171.190.10]:10474 "EHLO smtp-fw-33001.amazon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728996AbfLLMKs (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:10:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1576152647; x=1607688647; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IjCFRzWON9rJgnZo0jNdRDXJF1z083Lh5WgdDsRG8k8=; b=btmETCZPHZUlhp68TFLjDqEtrF997U2KpvcYeHUpbnvgM7p5kGdKIYCN MgD5gRbJ6Jx8abvYUPC/LPfuCzS1NW9R58zA828Xr4wuY1AAvmutKRoQj yH6fJHWEGwa9svH+Yj7Gh8OgsEtHDogJW6c751wQkVxchwqQ9kAeOlgPE o=; IronPort-SDR: wnwSLi2X93c+EWQX+sZvq/5Ca9tiKM8HI59BmLIYxpS8tAY1odPp1C9IHUPizrKvHVVythAMyn xCnJbhKFVBtQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,305,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="14500165" Received: from sea32-co-svc-lb4-vlan3.sea.corp.amazon.com (HELO email-inbound-relay-1a-821c648d.us-east-1.amazon.com) ([10.47.23.38]) by smtp-border-fw-out-33001.sea14.amazon.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2019 12:10:34 +0000 Received: from EX13MTAUEA001.ant.amazon.com (iad55-ws-svc-p15-lb9-vlan3.iad.amazon.com [10.40.159.166]) by email-inbound-relay-1a-821c648d.us-east-1.amazon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E600CA2184; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EX13D19EUB003.ant.amazon.com (10.43.166.69) by EX13MTAUEA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.61.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:10:29 +0000 Received: from 8c85908914bf.ant.amazon.com (10.43.160.109) by EX13D19EUB003.ant.amazon.com (10.43.166.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:10:23 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/cma: Fix checkpatch error To: Leon Romanovsky , Jason Gunthorpe CC: Max Hirsch , Doug Ledford , Parav Pandit , Steve Wise , Bart Van Assche , Danit Goldberg , Matthew Wilcox , Dag Moxnes , Myungho Jung , , References: <20191211111628.2955-1-max.hirsch@gmail.com> <20191211162654.GD6622@ziepe.ca> <20191212084907.GU67461@unreal> From: Gal Pressman Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:10:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191212084907.GU67461@unreal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.43.160.109] X-ClientProxiedBy: EX13D27UWB004.ant.amazon.com (10.43.161.101) To EX13D19EUB003.ant.amazon.com (10.43.166.69) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/12/2019 10:49, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:26:54PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:16:26AM +0000, Max Hirsch wrote: >>> When running checkpatch on cma.c the following error was found: >> >> I think checkpatch will complain about your patch, did you run it? > > Jason, Doug > > I would like to ask to refrain from accepting checkpatch.pl patches > which are not part of other large submission. Such standalone cleanups > do more harm than actual benefit from them for old and more or less > stable code (e.g. RDMA-CM). Sounds like a great approach to prevent new developers from contributing code. You have to start somewhere and checkpatch patches are a good entry point for such developers, discouraging them will only hurt us in the long term. Linus had an interesting post on the subject: https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/12/20/255