linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] silicom: checkpatch: errors caused by macros

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:36:43 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Lorenz Haspel <lorenz@...gers.com>,
	devel@...uxdriverproject.org, puff65537@...sheeslibrary.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, michael.banken@...he.stud.uni-erlangen.de,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] silicom: checkpatch: errors caused by macros

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:03:43PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Generally I think it's better that new submitters patches
> > should go through more strict reviews and be as correct
> > as possible.  I think this is especially true for patches
> > that are just checkpatch driven.
> 
> I totally disagree, sorry.

I'm unsurprised.  We have different tastes.

While whitespace only cleanup patches have some use,
for these types of patches, I'm more interested in
educating others what sorts of patches have higher
value.

o defects
o style/readability
o whitespace

As always, ymmv.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/