Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Andy Whitcroft
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:10:43PM +0200, Constantine Shulyupin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > I don't think it's an issue. I'm not sure anyone > > really uses --ignore for much other than LONG_LINE. > > Indeed. Must all code be 80 characters width? My be my be

Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Constantine Shulyupin
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > I don't think it's an issue. I'm not sure anyone > really uses --ignore for much other than LONG_LINE. Indeed. Must all code be 80 characters width? My be my be better to make line length configurable than ignore it? Or at least print actual

Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:50 +0200, Constantine Shulyupin wrote: > >> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:29 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > >> Perhaps just > >> WARN("NEEDLESS_IF", > > > > I would cirtainly be happy with that, I was trying to avoid changing the > > capacity for th

Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Constantine Shulyupin
>> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:29 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote: >> Perhaps just >> WARN("NEEDLESS_IF", > > I would cirtainly be happy with that, I was trying to avoid changing the > capacity for the existing NEEDLESS_KFREE. If compatibility there isn't > an issue then tha

Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Andy Whitcroft
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:43:49AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:29 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > > This all looks sensible, though we still have three blocks doing the > > same thing. How about we standardise this check into a single check, > > generating the capacity f

Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:29 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > This all looks sensible, though we still have three blocks doing the > same thing. How about we standardise this check into a single check, > generating the capacity from the matched name. [] > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts

Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-20 Thread Andy Whitcroft
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:20:18AM +0200, Constantine Shulyupin wrote: > From: Constantine Shulyupin > > debugfs_remove() and debugfs_remove_recursive() can take a NULL, so let's > check and warn about that. > > Changes since v3, as Joe Perches suggested: > - removed redundant check > > Chang

[PATCH v4] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL

2012-11-17 Thread Constantine Shulyupin
From: Constantine Shulyupin debugfs_remove() and debugfs_remove_recursive() can take a NULL, so let's check and warn about that. Changes since v3, as Joe Perches suggested: - removed redundant check Changes since v2, as Joe Perches suggested: - match whitespace around argument Changes since