[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090216161310.GV28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:13:10 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in
kernel/kallsyms.c
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:50:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak,
> > > ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug
> > > or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to
> > > mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already
> > > got merged. I dont understand your point.
> >
> > I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what
> > the effect of the patch is and describe this".
>
> Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be
> mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable.
Hell, yes. I'm sick and tired of "$DRIVER: fix sparse warnings <something
far off-screen when looking at it in mutt on xterm>" kind of subjects,
while we are at it. Mention the tool when that adds information useful for
understanding commit message and patch; otherwise you are just adding noise.
--
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