On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 18:34 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > I'd suggest a couple more, which > *should* always make sense, and to the best of my knowledge don't tend > to generate false positives: > > C99_COMMENTS
I don't have a problem with c99 comments. As far as I know, Linus doesn't either. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/16/473 > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL > CVS_KEYWORD OK, but <shrug> > ELSE_AFTER_BRACE I wouldn't do this one. I think there are some false positives here. > GLOBAL_INITIALIZERS > INITIALISED_STATIC Nor these. > INVALID_UTF8 > LINUX_VERSION_CODE > MISSING_EOF_NEWLINE OK I suppose. > PREFER_SEQ_PUTS > PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL There are a lot of these. I suggest no here. > RETURN_PARENTHESES > SIZEOF_PARENTHESIS It's in coding style, but some newish patches do avoid them. It's a question about how noisy you want your robot to be. > SPACE_BEFORE_TAB > TRAILING_SEMICOLON > TRAILING_WHITESPACE > USE_DEVICE_INITCALL > USE_RELATIVE_PATH Having checkpatch tell people how to write changelogs I think not a great idea. > These *ought* to make sense, but I don't know their false positive rates: > > HEXADECIMAL_BOOLEAN_TEST That's a good one. 0 false positives. > ALLOC_ARRAY_ARGS Yes, this would be reasonable too. > CONSIDER_KSTRTO I think orobably not. This would be a cleanup thing. > CONST_STRUCT OK > SPLIT_STRING I suggest no but <shrug> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
