[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071230182631.GA7409@cvg.cvg>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:26:31 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken
[Ingo Molnar - Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:22:50PM +0100]
|
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
|
| > orig:
| > mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
| > new (could be):
| > mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1);
| >
| > Is a new version that bad?
|
| it's certainly acceptable as newly introduced code but only borderline
| better than the original code. I'd suggest to stick to the problem areas
| that checkpatch.pl complains about at the moment - we have really
| obvious bad looking pieces of code that checkpatch.pl reports, and going
| after the borderline cases will only result in coding-style lawyering
| and flamewars, not any genuine increase in code quality ;-)
|
| for example:
|
| arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c:
|
| total: 19 errors, 2 warnings, 98 lines checked
|
| or:
|
| arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c:
|
| total: 56 errors, 31 warnings, 2402 lines checked
|
| and once we have nothing but the borderline cases and if we get really
| bored we can start coding style flamewars ;-)
|
| Ingo
|
Thanks Ingo, you're quite right! Next time i'll appear in list with real
(and hope usefull) patch ;)
Cyrill
--
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