[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1393281098.11020.82.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:31:38 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Tom Rini <trini@...com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Add warning for new __packed additions
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:20 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 05:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> I've got this modified to a CHK and only for non-file usage. Anything
> >> else we want to talk about before I repost?
> >
> > Probably not, but I'm still not convinced it's useful.
> >
> > Have you found a case where it's currently specified
> > but not useful?
>
> Well, U-Boot and the kernel both share the dubious to incorrect __packed
> horror of cros_ec things (see include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h).
Are the __packed entries in cros_ec dubious?
Maybe the ones that don't seem to need them
because the are naturally 32 bit aligned, but
the others that are u16 aligned probably _do_
need __packed.
> If this is really not seen as useful for the kernel, that's fine, I'll
> drop it. I mainly did this for U-Boot where we do want a bit more loud
> screaming going on when people add __packed to make sure it's for a good
> reason. Wanted to be a good neighbor so to speak and see if upstream
> wants it too.
I don't mind keeping checkpatch compatible with U-Boot
requirements, but probably not on by default.
Maybe there would be some "UBOOT-<foo>" type specific entries
that could be default off but enabled with some wildcard or
a .checkpatch.conf specific file for U-Boot.
--
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