Le 14/04/2011 01:30, Mike Frysinger a écrit : > On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 16:23:20 Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> btw. I suspect the change is to keep checkpatch.pl happy about the line >> length. > > also, checkpatch is a tool in the toolbox. people should not be blindly > following it, but reviewing its output to see what should be changed and which > should be ignored. > > if checkpatch is complaining about code that you arent changing, then you > probably shouldnt worry about it. especially when the only thing you're doing > is changing style.
I tend to see this "don't worry about some checkpatch.pl messages" appraoch as similar to "don't worry about some C compiler warnings". in that indeed "you probably shouldn't worry about it", and the key is "probably": when it bites you back later on, you realize you "probably" should have worried. If you apply a zero-C-warning policy, then a zero-checkpatch-warning policy makes sense as well... ... with the exception of Linux-centric warning or a coding style warning which would conflict with U-Boot's coding style -- anyone interested in introducing 'flavors' or 'style' in checkpatch.pl, with oone Linux and one U-Boot flavor/style to begin with? So ignoring /some specific/ checkpatch.pl diagnostic is ok, but that's as long as it is established that the specific diagnostic is purely linux-centric" or voluntarily ignored as a coding rule; but then we'd need a list of such 'non-warnings' somewhere on the Wiki, I think, along with a rationale for ignoring it. > -mike Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
