On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > runs the thing. > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;)
That shouldn't be too hard. checkpatch has been subscribed since birth but short circuiting the replies to me only. I guess the main question is whether to reply-all or reply just to the sender when commenting on patches. Perhaps for the sanity of the rest of the world, just the sender makes most sense. > (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. > You wouldn't _believe_...) It should pick up both of these, the word-wrapping is already there as we detect lines within patch segments which don't start '[ +-]', the tab-expanded should be picked up as every line would be "don't use spaces use tabs for indent". -apw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
