[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802220025240.26109@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:31:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Glenn Streiff <gstreiff@...Effect.com>,
Faisal Latif <flatif@...Effect.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Merging of completely unreviewed drivers
On Feb 21 2008 14:43, Greg KH wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 01:33:03AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:14:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > Quite frankly, I've several times been *this* close (holds up fingers so
>> > you can't even see between them) to just remove checkpatch entirely.
>>
>> Agrh! What stopped you?!
>>
>> > I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are
>> > anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines (where the
>> > "fixed" version is usually worse than the original), but it's been true
>> > for some other warnings too.
>>
>> Speaking of driver, could authors please comment all those barrier()
>> calls and remove trailing "return;" at the end of void functions.
>
>Why don't you make a patch to checkpatch.pl for those types of things?
>:)
checkpatch would never allow a patch to patch checkpatch.
--
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