On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:49:00 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:54:41 +0200 SeongJae Park <sjp...@amazon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the inexperienced _do_ in fact run > > > > > > checkpatch on files and submit inappropriate patches. > > > > I don't think I really agree with the "new code only" guideline (where > > did this come from, anyway?). 10 years from now any remaining pre-2020 > > terms will look exceedingly archaic and will get converted at some > > point. > > > > Wouldn't be longterm realistic to just bite the bullet now and add these > > conversions to the various todo lists? > > I don't think so. > > There's no exclusion list for existing uses > written to external specification. > > It's just emitting effectively noisy warnings > on things that should not be changed. > Just noticed that this patchset and the followup[1] for sync with inclusive terms commit[2] are dropped from -mm tree. I admit it could generate some false positive warnings, though my followup patch[3] makes the message noisy but gives clear references. I still believe it's better to provide the messages, but I also know people could think differently. After all, the biggest part of the initial goal of this patches is already made by the inclusive terms commit[2]. So, I would respect the decision. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200713071912.24432-1-sjp...@amazon.com/ [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=a5f526ecb075a08c4a082355020166c7fe13ae27 [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200726180748.29924-1-sj38.p...@gmail.com/ Thanks, SeongJae Park
