Re: [PATCH] tpm: Use named initializers for arrays of i2c_device_data
Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-integrity,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <ahP3V5viwMtnH9PC@monoceros> |
Hello Jarkko, On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 03:44:05PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 12:43:23AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > Clean up can be side-effect but not a purpose. > > > > Oh, I disagree. Having code in a state where you can easily see what > > happens helps to concentrate on the parts that are more complicated. So > > it's a win for maintenance and lowering the entry bar for people who are > > not used to Linux kernel code. There are parts in the kernel that are > > complicated, and we won't get rid of them, because operating systems are > > complicated. But my POV here is that making it easier where it's > > possible is a good thing and a reason for itself. You might call that a > > paper cut only, but these add up. > > > > Also with the union in i2c_device_id the compiler warns you if some code > > is lacking a "const". So it becomes harder to make mistakes, this is > > also a reason that in my book is good enough for itself. > > Actually what I said is more important than ever before given AI agents. > > If I start to accept pure cleanups from humans it's like invitiation for > slop. This is actually an area where it would be advicable for any > maintainer to tighten the acceptance criteria. I also disagree here. If a patch improves something (be it security, runtime behaviour or maintainability) that should be reason enough to accept it. If it's created by AI (or a by a newbie with the help of AI) that's a reason to make sure the patch has the intended effect, but that's essentially the same for any patch. I agree that AI might get problematic if it floods maintainers and effectively becomes a DOS attack to maintainer resources. But that doesn't necessarily makes the patches it proposes bad. Best regards Uwe
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 488 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmoT+aoACgkQj4D7WH0S /k55kAf/WirBb5saUL7Ev1pLCl0q58GbEQKdqUbGyrvbSGc8cYglVsjopgwdVjFp ymNsegq7ZumAxs1QumcIGgBgJTXh4eKCr9zk1FHJFQRoTQuXoEbTwXjgXsXlz43J P48HBaRfkRQtMIAuvnhE8pfEW7KJIABItUfU+kigDHRHTqXJ3TscK+b8MosASlKa Ov+7gbB4C8G68C0+TWv7gF/6rOqDERrUyC4DxbODXEN4GJubP4IXA3JyhZBAGrb8 gNxvnxN6OilwrQdTwoBLLUy/mrVsO/yu/R3a49aAa1EBlQrHPeLCoJ0YfoCe5MY/ Oj9A1we/OkHpCZteDY4mRxrhwhBtaw== =Y5x4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----