[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1393277304.11020.64.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:28:24 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Tom Rini <trini@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Add warning for new __packed additions
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:11 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 04:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that
> >> you should be doing something else here instead.
[]
> > How often is this actually a problem?
>
> I think the first line answers the second one, honestly. If one wants
> to get pedantic about things and really investigate there's probably
> some unneeded usages scattered about, and that's generally the type of
> thing one wants to address when checking whole files, right?
Maybe not.
That entirely depends on the correct and necessary uses of
packed vs the incorrect usage rates.
I think almost all packed uses are correct and there might
be a lot of patches submitted to remove them by over-zealous
advocates of checkpatch -f.
> > This may be better as
> > "Using 'packed' can impact performance\n"
> > and only tested when not in --file mode.
>
> I can also make this change, sure, just point me off-list for an example
> to crib from and test?
Look at the FSF mailing address test as an example:
my $msg_type = \&ERROR;
$msg_type = \&CHK if ($file);
&{$msg_type}("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS",
--
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