[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subjectcheckpatch [was: include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only]
    On 03/23/2008 01:30 PM, David Miller wrote:
    > From: Jiri Slaby <>
    > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:24:23 +0100
    >> On 03/23/2008 01:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
    >>> There are mountains of more useful stuff to be working on (much of it
    >>> automated, but unlike checkpatch work doesn't result in crap) rather
    >>> than 148 patches of checkpatch vomit.
    >>> Fixing sparse warnings properly fixes real issues, whereas fixing
    >>> checkpatch stuff creates garbage 9 times out of 10.
    >> Yes, I agree with you in this.
    >> What I don't agree with is that it's useless. It may help track down some issues
    >> in yet prepared patch (it's checkpatch, not checkcode and it should be used in
    >> that manner).
    > I strongly disagree still.
    > Half the warnings I get when I have run checkpatch on things I've
    > written were crap.

    Could you be more concrete here? I often get only "more than 80 columns used
    blah blah" in the header files and this sucks, yes. This check removal was
    discussed some time ago on the list, seems like the result was to let it be.

    > It's an automaton, and that's why people like it. It tells you
    > exactly what to do, and people like to be able to turn their brains
    > off like that.

    It just spits out warnings/errors like compiler or some static analyzer, maybe
    I'm terribly missing something, what exactly do you mind on the output?

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-23 13:51    [W:3.177 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site