[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ha=+g2bCr+0Xf47bh-fr66woJfhubd7guc-Dr-xC9x1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:09:15 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, tsu.yubo@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kobject: to use pr_warn replace KERN_WARNING
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:58 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 08:49 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:42 AM Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Fix warning form checkpatch, use pr_warn replace KERN_WARNING
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>
> >
> > First off, IMO, you should not change the existing code just in order
> > to make checkpatch happy about it. That alone is not a good enough
> > reason for modifying it.
> >
> > If the checkpatch warning indicates an issue like broken white space
> > (and I mean really broken and not lines longer than 80 chars etc),
> > then that may be a reason to modify the existing code, depending.
>
> Existing code is slightly broken.
> There is currently a missing terminating newline in the
> non-switch case match, when msg == NULL;
OK, so this should be explained in the patch changelog.
Saying "I do this to make checkpatch happy" in the changelog is just
not enough IMO (if not outright misleading).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists