Re: x86: remove casts

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jan 19 2008 15:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> On Jan 18 2008 11:45, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is against x86/mm.
>>>
>>>hm, it has checkpatch failures -
>> 
>>All false positives.
>
>no, not "All false positives", the first checkpatch failure is a blatant 
>ugliness that you introduced:
>
> ERROR: use tabs not spaces
> #137: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/microcode.c:248:
> +^I^I          EXT_SIGNATURE_SIZE * i;$
>
>because you converted a tab to a sequence of 10 spaces:
>
>-		ext_sig = (struct extended_signature *)((void *)ext_header
>-			+ EXT_HEADER_SIZE + EXT_SIGNATURE_SIZE * i);
>+		ext_sig = (void *)ext_header + EXT_HEADER_SIZE +
>+		          EXT_SIGNATURE_SIZE * i;
>                <........>
>
>but apparently you couldnt be bothered to check.
>Please do not bother to send patches with 
>such an attitude, it's just a waste of people's time.

There has been lots and lots of CodingStyle- and checkpatch-related
discussion, each with more or less definite outcome.
Among the threads was:

	"""I think that my proposal of using tabs as logical indents
	only (as Xav put it) and spaces for decorative alignment
	provides the best of both worlds. One can expand the tabs to
	any number of spaces as one likes and then the trailing
	spaces will work on any editor setup as long as you use
	fixed-width font. That's not considered "correct" as per
	checkpatch but works much better for me."""

	( http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/12/19 )

If you disagree with this style proposal (which is neither allowed nor 
forbidden according to CodingStyle; and taking checkpatch as a 
master-solution just seems wrong), then please say so (you did) and I 
will make a special exception for all submissions to code which 
involve you.

===