Re: [PATCH] NFS: Clean up errors in nfs_page.h

[Jeff Layton]

On Fri, 2023-10-13 at 11:12 +0800, chenguohua@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Fix the following errors reported by checkpatch:
> 
> ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxO)
> 
> Signed-off-by: JiangHui Xu <xujianghui@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/nfs_page.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/nfs_page.h b/include/linux/nfs_page.h
> index 1c315f854ea8..6a3c54bd2c40 100644
> --- a/include/linux/nfs_page.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nfs_page.h
> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct nfs_pageio_descriptor {
>  /* arbitrarily selected limit to number of mirrors */
>  #define NFS_PAGEIO_DESCRIPTOR_MIRROR_MAX 16
>  
> -#define NFS_WBACK_BUSY(req)	(test_bit(PG_BUSY,&(req)->wb_flags))
> +#define NFS_WBACK_BUSY(req)	(test_bit(PG_BUSY, &(req)->wb_flags))
>  
>  extern struct nfs_page *nfs_page_create_from_page(struct nfs_open_context *ctx,
>  						  struct page *page,

In general, we don't usually take patches that just clean up whitespace
damage or stylistic problems. Doing so makes backporting harder as you
end up having to pull in extra patches to fix up minor differences
before bringing in substantive patches.

If you're fixing a real bug in the same area, then sure, go ahead and
fix up the style in the surrounding code, but if these patches don't
fix real bugs then I'd suggest not taking them.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>