Re: [PATCH] x86/mem: Make mem_hotadd_check() more legible

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 19.07.2023 14:54, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 02:09:55PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> [1] The hand-crafted alignment there is going to collide with the efforts
>>> to integrate automatic style checkers. It's also not conveying critical
>>> information, so I'd argue for its removal in the spirit of making future
>>> diffs less intrusive.
>>
>> ... I don't agree here. First of all I don't see why this should
>> make style checking harder. There's nothing written anywhere that
>> such alignment padding isn't allowed in our code, so any checker
>> we want to use would need to tolerate it. Plus while such padding
>> doesn't convey critical information, it still helps readability.
>>
> Considering the last Xen Summit sessions I think it's reasonable to assume
> we do want automatic style checking to become a reality.

Oh, just to avoid potential misunderstanding: I certainly agree here.
Just that, like in many other cases where computers (or automation in
more general terms) are involved I think that ...

> If we want an
> automatic style checker to be eventually introduced I think we should be
> mindful of style changes unlikely to be captured by _any_ policy we may end
> up having. In particular, alignment of arguments across different
> statements on different functions/macros is unsupported on (most?) major
> style checkers, and that's highly unlikely to ever change.

... the goal wants to be that computers (or alike) adapt to their
users, not the other way around. Sadly we're still extremely far from
that ...

Jan