Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks.

From: Jeff Kirsher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:37:41 -0700

On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 15:23 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 02:39 PM, Janusz Wolak wrote:
> > From: Janusz Wolak <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Wolak <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_param.c | 114
> ++++++++++++++++++-------
> >   1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_param.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_param.c
> > index c9cde35..9ec730e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_param.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_param.c
> > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> >  
> /********************************************************************
> ***********
> > -
> > +*
> >     Intel PRO/1000 Linux driver
> >     Copyright(c) 1999 - 2006 Intel Corporation.
> >   
> > @@ -45,10 +45,10 @@
> >   
> >   #define E1000_PARAM_INIT { [0 ... E1000_MAX_NIC] = OPTION_UNSET }
> >   #define E1000_PARAM(X, desc) \
> > -     static int X[E1000_MAX_NIC+1] = E1000_PARAM_INIT; \
> > +     static int X[E1000_MAX_NIC + 1] = E1000_PARAM_INIT; \
> >       static unsigned int num_##X; \
> >       module_param_array_named(X, X, int, &num_##X, 0); \
> > -     MODULE_PARM_DESC(X, desc);
> > +     MODULE_PARM_DESC(X, desc)
> >   
> >   /* Transmit Descriptor Count
> >    *
> > @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ struct e1000_option {
> >               } r;
> >               struct { /* list_option info */
> >                       int nr;
> > +
> >                       const struct e1000_opt_list { int i; char
> *str; } *p;
> >               } l;
> >       } arg;
> 
> How is adding a space here adding any value?  Please don't just
> blindly 
> follow checkpatch as it can give out erroneous information.
> 
> Looking over most of this patch series it seems like it is taking 
> readability in the wrong direction and reducing the ability to
> maintain 
> the driver since this code has been "maintenance only" for some time 
> now.  If somebody comes up with a legitimate fix for an issue at some
> point in the future they will need to work around these patches in
> order 
> to back-port it into a stable release and that just hurts
> maintainability.
> 
> I'd say this whole series should be rejected on the grounds that this
> driver is mostly stable and should only really be modified for bug
> fixes 
> at this point.  If we really need to go through and do a checkpatch 
> sweep we should probably just focus on serious errors only instead of
> going astray and chasing down things that are false hits or minor
> issues 
> that are mostly a matter of preference.

In addition to all what Alex has said, I am not pleased about a 6 patch
series, with every patch in the series with the exact same frickin
title.

Consider this patch series rejected and dropped.