Oh, yes, I may misunderstood it. I just ran ./scripts/checkpatch.pl to check files that I touched and fixed those I can fix. So I will send the v4 of this patch which just fix the whitespace issues based on v2. Is that right? Forgive my being naive. :) Thanks very much for all!
Le 2014-05-25 22:36 GMT+08:00 Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru>: > 25.05.2014 18:29, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2014-05-25 10:44, Le Tan wrote: >>> Replace fprintf(stderr,...) with error_report() in files block/*, block.c, >>> block-migration.c and blockdev.c. The trailing "\n"s of the @fmt argument >>> have been removed because @fmt of error_report() should not contain newline. >>> Also fix some coding style issues. >> >> Let's do the "also" part in a separate patch. It's more than one or two >> trivial pass-by style fixes, and some people may like the fprintf >> conversion while having different views on the other changes. > > I think he misunderstood. > > I told him that his previous patch had its own whitespace issues, > ie, it _adds_ whitespace errors. > > In another reply I told him it is usually a good idea to fix style > issues in the code the patch touches -- this means, close to, if a > line being changed for something else has an unrelated style issue, > it should be fixed too. (An example was space between function name > and its arguments in fprintf argument list, while converting that > fprintf to error_report). > > But it looks like he took this advise in much more broad way and > fixed _all_ whitespace/style issues in the files he touches. Oh > well.. :) > > And yes, definitely, please don't mix it like this. Usually, these > code style issues should not be touched by its own, only if you > change nearby code. > > Thanks, > > /mjt
