On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 17:11 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:02:16AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 15:45 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:11:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Wei Tang <tang...@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote: > > [] > > > > > WARNING: sizeof sig->rlim should be sizeof(sig->rlim) > > [] > > > > If anyone feels strongly about accepting such patches, then the right > > > > solution is > > > > to create a Coccinelle semantic patch to run over the whole kernel and > > > > get over > > > > with the churn once and for all. > > > > > > That, or a single patch taking that piece of idiocy out of > > > checkpatch.pl... > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/11/103 > > Umm... Matter of taste, really
On that I can agree. Idiocy rather less so.
