[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:21:38 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Wei Tang <tangwei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, jason.low2@...com,
xypron.glpk@....de, oleg@...hat.com, koct9i@...il.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, cyphar@...har.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/fork.c: use sizeof() instead of sizeof
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 17:11 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:02:16AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 15:45 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:11:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Wei Tang <tangwei@...s.chinamobile.com> wrote:
> > []
> > > > > WARNING: sizeof sig->rlim should be sizeof(sig->rlim)
> > []
> > > > If anyone feels strongly about accepting such patches, then the right solution is
> > > > to create a Coccinelle semantic patch to run over the whole kernel and get over
> > > > with the churn once and for all.
> > >
> > > That, or a single patch taking that piece of idiocy out of checkpatch.pl...
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/11/103
>
> Umm... Matter of taste, really
On that I can agree. Idiocy rather less so.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists