| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:36:07 -0700 From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/72] Blackfin updates for 2.6.32 On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:17 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > this code i had rewritten and as fallout, the style changed. looks > fine to me, and no, this particular checpatch "error" is not always > worthwhile (like in this case). Have you read Documentation/CodingStyle ? Can you better explain why your don't want to follow that document ? Most people accept that to be the style of code in Linux, and that is what checkpatch checks for.. We also have this quote from Documentation/SubmittingPatches "4) Style check your changes. Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be found in Documentation/CodingStyle. Failure to do so simply wastes the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably without even being read. At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch." If you ultimately don't correct these changes, I'd ask that in the future you submit pull requests for the blackfin architecture instead of sending individual patches .. Daniel -- 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