On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:18:56 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > By priority I mean if preserving the reverse xmas tree is a most > after any changes that mess in some way with it. As in the case below, > where things were already messed up: > > + const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *base = &lk_ksettings->base; > struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev); > struct bnxt_link_info *link_info = &bp->link_info; > - const struct ethtool_link_settings *base = &lk_ksettings->base; > bool set_pause = false; > u32 speed, lanes = 0; > int rc = 0; > > Should I leave the rest as-is, or should I now have to rearrange the whole > thing to accommodate for the convention?
Don't rearrange the rest. The point is that if you touch a line you end up with a delete and an add. So you can as well move it to get it closer to the convention. But that's just nice to have, I brought the entire thing up because of the net/ethtool/ code which previously followed the convention and after changes it wouldn't. > How I see this, we can take a couple of directions: > > a) when things are already messed up, just implement your changes and leave > the rest as-is. This is acceptable, moving things closer to convention is nice to have. > b) when your changes mess things up, clean it up and accommodate for the > convention. Yes, if by "your changes mess things up" you mean that the code follows the convention exactly for a given function - then yes, the changes must remain complaint. Not sure why you say "clean it up", if the code is complaint you shouldn't break it. No touching of pre-existing code (other than modified lines) should be necessary. > extra option: > > c) this is probably going to be a case by case thing and we may ask you > to do more changes as we see fit. > > To be clear, I have no issue with c) (because it's basically how things > usually work), as long as maintainers don't expect v1 of any patch to > be in pristine form. In any other case, I would really like to be crystal > clear about what's expected and what's not.
