> If no one has commented on what seems pretty trivial (especially since > checkpatch.pl has no official maintainer, but is more of a > "whoever-touched-it-last" file at the moment), then including the patch > in your pull request is perfectly acceptable. As a maintainer, it is > also perfectly acceptable for you to ignore false positives from > checkpatch (although documenting it in the commit message and/or cover > letter never hurts, when you are intentionally ignoring a false positive).
Thanks for the comprehensive response. > But, as there has also been a recent patch to teach checkpatch about > glib types [1], your patch makes sense (any merge conflict between your > patch and that one will be obvious to resolve). So on that grounds, > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> Thanks. I will rebase onto current master before sending a pull request, so I'll get to resolve that conflict. Regards, Ian.
