[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30522d64-8303-cf13-d967-a5759aeb2278@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:50:15 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: See if modified files are marked obsolete in
MAINTAINERS
> @@ -2289,6 +2299,10 @@ sub process {
> }
>
> if ($found_file) {
> + if (is_maintained_obsolete($realfile)) {
> + WARN("OBSOLETE",
> + "$realfile is marked as 'obsolete' in the MAINTAINERS hierarchy. No unnecessary modifications please.\n");
> + }
How do you think about to avoid a double negation in such a warning message?
Would a wording like "… Only really necessary modifications please.\n"
be more useful here?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists