On Wed, 01/03 15:00, Michael Clark wrote: > So it's essentially one error, the single line case pattern for > table-driven decode which flags for long lines and asks to separate break > onto its own line. > > We have actually reduced the readability of other parts of the code to > conform to this specific rule. In fact I spent a day and a half with > checkpatch, but it didn't seem to make sense for the disassembler. > > The question is should one blindly comply with the rule for > machine-generated tables. Editing the code manually introduces the > potential for human error. I can, if needed, modify the disassembler > generator to output code with the required verbosity.
Thanks for taking a look! Practically, consistency with the rest of the code and human judgements (comments, explanation in replies etc.) often override the checkpatch complaints. Checkpatch is not always right. Fam
