Re: [PATCH] xen/acpi: Don't fail if SPCR table is absent

[Elliott Mitchell <ehem+xen@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:38:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> I don't think we are very consistent here... I would not add them 
> myself, but I don't particularly mind them (I know some editors will add 
> them automatically).
> 
> I will keep them while committing. For the patch:

I would tend to remove them on commit since I dislike them.  Just as
stated, I was unsure.

On default settings, clang-format will object to:

if(thing)
{
        foo
}
else
        bar

Or

if(thing)
        foo
else
{
        bar
}

I *like* those formats, but was under the impression most people did not.
The indentation is the more visually obvious indicator, just the compiler
actually uses the brackets.  As such I *like* the misleading indentation
warnings as those seemed to have a fairly high true-positive rate.


On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:44:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Thank you for the patch. FIY I tweak a bit the commit title before 
> committing.
> 
> The title is now: "xen/arm: acpi: Don't fail it SPCR table is absent".

Perhaps "xen/arm: acpi: Don't fail on absent SPCR table"?

What you're suggesting doesn't read well to me.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg@xxxxxxx  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445