[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1412051403160.20522@yossarian>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 14:35:54 -0800 (PST)
From: terry white <twhite@...ota.com>
To: joe@...ches.com
cc: linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by
pr_warn() in mppe_rekey()
... ciao:
: on "12-4-2014" "Joe Perches" writ:
: > Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux
: > coding style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this
: > update suggestion was also triggered by a warning from the script
: > "checkpatch.pl".
:
: Probably not.
:
: Overly formalized coding style rules are perhaps
: more of a barrier to entry than most want.
funny you should mention that. as nothing more than a casual observer,
i'm noticing a "TIRED" sensation reading this thread. i have "0"
confidence a "SERIOUS" participant's enthusiasm would remain untested.
however, the "checkpatch.pl" warning suggests an assumed 'custom'. i
can't tell if this a 'serious' issue, or "pickin' fly shit out of pepper".
but from my reading of it, the "CODE" , and the "logic" driving it, is
not the problem.
season's best ...
--
... it's not what you see ,
but in stead , notice ...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists