Re: [PATCH 02/12] samples: configfs: order includes alphabetically

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:45:16PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The preferred coding style is to order all includes alphabetically for
> > improved readability. There's no need for the configfs header to come
> > last.
>
> Is it?  People seem to have all kinds of weird opinions, but I don't
> think any ordering really makes sense.  What does make sense it dropping
> the pointless empty line, so I've folded that into the next patch.

This is not just a baseless opinion, keeping headers sorted clearly
has an advantage: you more easily avoid duplicating includes, you see
right away if a header is already included or not. Many maintainers
will require ordering in new patches.

It's your call but it's better code with not much effort.

Bartosz