Message ID | Y/OueIbrfUBZRw5J@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [git,pull] device mapper changes for 6.3 | expand |
On Mon, Feb 20 2023 at 12:31P -0500, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Linus, > > The following changes since commit 4a6a7bc21d4726c5772e47525e6039852555b391: > > block: Default to use cgroup support for BFQ (2023-01-30 09:42:42 -0700) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git tags/for-6.3/dm-changes > > for you to fetch changes up to d695e44157c8da8d298295d1905428fb2495bc8b: > > dm: remove unnecessary (void*) conversion in event_callback() (2023-02-20 11:52:49 -0500) > > Please pull, thanks. > Mike I should have mentioned: these DM changes are based on the "Block updates for 6.3" from Jens.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:31 AM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org> wrote: > > - Fix all of DM's checkpatch errors and warnings (famous last words). Actually, I think some of these are potentially actively detrimental. I do *not* believe that we should run checkpatch on existing code, since many of those things are heuristics. For example, the Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop check is dubious at best, and actively wrong at worst. It's probably fine for new patches, but to use for existing code? Very very questionable. There are very real reason to use "do { xyz } while (0)" even for single statements. In particular, it changes an expression statement into a non-expression one, which means that you cannot mis-use it with comma-expressions and some other situations. Does that usually matter? No. But I *can* matter, and may well be done intentionally. Similarly, when you have multiple macros next to each other, it may well make sense to just have them all have a common pattern, even if a couple of them are just single statements. Now, maybe all of this is ok for the dm code, but I really want to emphasize that running checkpatch on pre-existing code and making "trivial changes" based on it, and trying to get the warnings down to zero is THE WRONG THING TO DO. Checkpatch should not be seen as a "the warnings should not exist". It should be seen as at most a _guide_. So never a "remove all warnings" thing, but a "hey, new patch gets this note, think about it". Some checkpatch warnings are also more black-and-white than others. And that "don't use do { } while (0)" is definitely *NOT* some kind of absolute dictum. Linus
The pull request you sent on Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:31:36 -0500:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git tags/for-6.3/dm-changes
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/f0b2769a0185ccf84842a795b5587afc37274c3d
Thank you!