On 24 February 2013 11:42, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 24.02.2013 12:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> In this case I actually kind of 50% thought they were the >> result of conflicts/merge process rather than intentional, >> which is why I cleaned them up. I don't actually care one >> way or the other, so you can reinstate them if you prefer. > > My reasoning was to differenciate between the header guard and any > in-file #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY or TARGET_FOO, which for functions I > usually separate by one line. > > I don't really care too much though, it's just the principle that angers > me that you made me go through hoops, propagating > adopt-the-author's-style when it comes to target-arm files, while now > violating your own paradigm and apparently even finding that funny.
I'm sorry; that smiley was perhaps misplaced. I dropped the blank lines because I didn't understand their purpose and part of my process before sending patches out is "read patch and fix anything I would comment on if it were code review of somebody else's patch". You've explained the rationale for them, so I will reinstate them. V2 coming up later today or tomorrow. -- PMM
