On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 02:11:54PM -0800, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:23:32AM -0600, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > > Yea putting this in the commit message but more importantly knowing you > > looked through the logic of how claim class is used is what I'm looking > > for. > > Coming back around to this patch after a few days, after initially > commenting on the unexplained behavior change, I realize a better > response would have been a simple NAK. > > This patch demonstrates why style-only cleanups are generally discouraged > outside of drivers/staging. It creates code churn without fixing bugs > or adding functionality, the changes aren't justified in the commit > message, it adds risk, and consumes limited reviewer and maintainer > bandwidth. > > To recoup value from the time already spent on this, I suggest using > this opportunity to set a clear position and precedent, like: > > "Style cleanups are not welcomed in the NVDIMM subsystem unless > they're part of a fix or a patch series that includes substantive > changes to the same code area."
Let's rotten it with the old APIs and style then :-) I have heard you and I won't try even bring any new patch in this subsystem, thanks. > FWIW, if folks are looking to dive into this code, there is a patchset > in review here[1] that adds new functionality to this area. Reviews, > including style reviews, are welcomed. > > Regardless of a commit message update or a change to the code, this > one is a NAK from me. > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/[email protected]/ -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
