On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:37:15 -0800
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please integrate checkpatch into your processes - this one had a few little
> > glitches.
>
> FWIW - I've run all patches through checkpatch.pl since your last review.
cool, thanks.
> This one went through a couple cycles of checkpatch actually :) There's
> three warnings that I get:
>
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> #70: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmapi.h:200:
> +struct dlm_ctxt * dlm_register_domain(const char *domain, u32 key,
>
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #269: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:813:
> +
> #&dlm->fs_locking_proto,
>
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #270: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:814:
> +
> #&query->fs_proto)) {
>
> total: 1 errors, 2 warnings, 569 lines checked
>
>
> The "foo * bar" one is from existing code which got moved, and I felt that
> leaving them unmodified was cleaner from a patch-reading perspective.
I tend to clean those things up as we go, because it's a free patch.
otoh I see that dlm style is presently space-after-asterisk so there's not
a lot of point in fixing just one of them.
> The over 80 characters warnings were ignored as the code seemed more
> readable as-is.
yes, I tend to ignore those warnings unless the mess is really gratuitous or
if the surrounding code has obviously made some effort to avoid the problem.
> I guess a lot of this can be subjective though, so I can be super strict if
> you really feel it's necessary.
No, you shouldn't view checkpatch as a things-i-must-do. It is a
things-i-might-have-missed tool. If you _meant_ things to be that way then
fine, ignore it.
--
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/
