[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160922214725.4082f9dc@endymion>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:47:25 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where
> > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump
> > labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the
> > output of checkpatch (how is that related?) and now you pull statistics
> > out of your hat, like these numbers imply anything.
>
> No, not out of a hat. Those are the results of a silly script that
> runs checkpatch on every .[ch] kernel file (but not tools/) with:
>
> --show-types --terse --emacs --strict --no-summary --quiet -f
Silly is the key word here. Just don't do it.
> The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful
> to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude.
I agree. Just don't do it.
> > checkpatch was called checkPATCH for a reason.
>
> That's why I promote the --force option to limit using checkpatch on
> files outside of staging.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332205/
>
> Andrew? Are you going to apply that one day?
I hope not. Looks plain wrong to me. This wont prevents idiots from
being idiots. All it does is make things more difficult for the rest of
us.
> > ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period.
>
> Disagree. The compiler doesn't care.
Which is good, because this has nothing to do with the compiler.
> The value of consistency in reducing defects is very hard to quantify.
That's not the only purpose of consistency.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
Powered by blists - more mailing lists