-----Original Message-----
From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@ucw.cz]
Sent: 05 October, 2015 23:58
To: Tirdea, Irina
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov; Bastien Nocera; Aleksei Mamlin; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; Mark Rutland; Purdila, Octavian; linux-
kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] Input: goodix - sort includes alphabetically

Hi!

Hi!

quoted

quoted

Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] Input: goodix - sort includes alphabetically

On Mon 2015-09-07 17:36:15, Irina Tirdea wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Irina Tirdea <redacted>
---
 drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Don't.

Yes, we sometimes sort includes... to avoid patch rejects.

This is guaranteed to cause rejects.

If we do sort them, we use "longest-first" usually.

When using random order, I've been told by reviewers that my ordering
is wrong [1], but I could not figure out what the "right" ordering is in order to apply.
I did not find any mention of how to sort includes in  Documentation/CodingStyle,
but I've seen patches in the kernel that fix random ordering by sorting them
alphabetically [2].

Ok, I have seen this more often:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/28/99

I see. I wasn't aware of the inverse Xmas tree ordering.

quoted

However, I do not feel strongly about this so I can drop this patch.

Well, its really nit picking.

I was thinking of dropping it since there does not seem to be a consensus on how
to order the includes (or even if we should order them).  In this case, I guess it's
up to Dmitry.
I'll use the inverse Xmas tree ordering in next patch set and see if that works for him.

Thanks,
Irina

										Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html