Re: [PATCH v1] tools clang-format: Add a tools clang-format that overrides some kernel behaviors

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2026-04-13 at 09:19 -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 8:45 AM Joe Perches <[joe@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx)> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2026-04-13 at 08:39 -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:11 AM Joe Perches <[[joe@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx)](mailto:[joe@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxx))> wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-04-07 at 09:55 -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > Sorting headers is desirable to avoid issues like duplicate includes.
> > > > Perhaps.
> > > > Some others prefer reverse-christmas-tree by length ordering for #includes
> > > > though I think it's poor style.
> > > Thanks Joe. I second not switching to a reverse-christmas-tree style :-)
> > > If this patch is okay, could we bring it in through the perf tree?
> > It's likely better to avoid this suggestion.
> > The issue is that others strongly prefer that reverse-christmas-tree
> > style and would object so nak.
> Presumably that is a kernel suggestion rather than a tools directory
> suggestion. We can move the file into tools/perf, tools/lib/perf, etc.
> if that removes more global concerns. perf hasn't adopted a
> reverse-christmas-tree style.

Fine by me.
Just curious: is this a style control file used by directory depth/path?