Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: ipv4: use preferred kernel types

From: Joe Perches <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:26:01 -0800

On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 09:51 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 12:05 -0200, Lucas Tanure wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Patrick McHardy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > On 30.01, Lucas Tanure wrote:
> > > > As suggested by checkpatch.pl:
> > > > CHECK: Prefer kernel type 'uX' over 'uintX_t'
> > > 
> > > You might have noticed we have literally hundreds of them spread over 100
> > > files in the netfilter code. We'll gradually change them when the code is
> > > touched anyways.
> > > 
> > > >  net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c | 5 ++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Yes, I checked that. But would be better to change that now?
> > Because:
> > - could take years to anyone to touch the code, as the code already
> > works very well
> > - be more standardized could facilitate reading the code
> > - It's a good way to encourage new people to contribute to the code
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> These changes are a pain for people having to constantly backport fixes
> into stable kernels, or rebase their patches before upstream
> submissions.
> 
> Things like 'git cherry-pick' , 'git rebase' no longer work.
> This is a huge pain, and manual editing to resolve conflicts often
> add bugs.
> 
> Really, do you believe the 'uX' over 'uintX_t' stuff really matters for
> people working on adding new features and fixing bugs ?
> 
> I am certain that if you had to work like us, you would quickly see the
> utility of such changes is negative.
> 
> Sure, new submissions should be clean, but 'fixing' old code is not
> worth it.

That might depend on whether or not the linux kernel is
a "long-life project" and whether or no any old branch
of it is also important and sufficiently long-life.

The active life of a backport branch for the linux kernel
seems to be 3 or 4 years.  The linux kernel will likely
be useful for a few more decades beyond that.

Complex and long-life projects like the linux kernel
might benefit more in code complexity reduction patches
like these rather than code stasis for backward porting
ease.

In general, arguing for stasis leads to ossification,
slow decline.

Change for change's sake is poor, but changes to reduce
complexity, improve maintainability (for some measure of
it) and especially improve performance should be
welcomed where feasible.