[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <477196A9.3040205@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:47:53 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that
> checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example,
> run it over edd.c showed only one warning:
I'm generally skeptical to the kind of "cleanups" that you seem to be
referring to. More often then not they reduce legibility instead of the
opposite.
> ---
> cyrill@cvg linux-2.6.git $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file arch/x86/boot/edd.c
> WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
> #45: FILE: x86/boot/edd.c:45:
> + extern char _end[];
>
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 167 lines checked
>
> Your patch has style problems, please review. If any of these errors
> are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> ---
>
> but on line 53 we have:
>
> mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
>
> so checkpatch should at least worn me about missed space
> btw math operators. Am I wrong?
If checkpatch considered that line to be a problem, I would consider
checkpatch to be utterly broken. That line is perfectly legible, and
padding in a bunch of spaces would make it LESS so, especially since it
would have to be split between lines.
-hpa
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists