[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1392052786.2507.20.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:19:46 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: Unnecessary parentheses - maybe == should be = ?
On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 12:27 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> These messages are terrifying...
Hey Dan.
Do bumps in the night keep you up too? :)
> We do not want to encourage a million
> first patch submitters to start introducing = vs == bugs.
Definitely true and I didn't think of that.
> Did you look through the warning messages this generates? Was it ever
> appropriate to change the == to =?
I didn't check. My thought was that this was for
patches not files and the use of:
if ((foo == bar))
in a patch was excessive parentheses. The reason
to use the ((foo == bar)) form is when the intent
is to assign.
> Please remove the second part of that message.
Maybe emit it when what being scanned is a patch,
but not a file and only emit the excessive parens
when it's a file.
> Also there needs to be a mailing list for checkpatch.pl. LKML is a
> write only archive, but it's not a discussion list.
<shrug>.
A mailing list just for checkpatch seems excessive.
Maybe a combined source tools mailing list for scripts/
would be better and maybe smatch should be there too.
> Also the seq_puts() warning messages should be put under --strict
> because we have to fight against people submitting those patches.
Another <shrug>.
I still kind of like the seq_printf macro hack.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/16/79
--
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