On Thursday, April 14, 2011 01:58:32 Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > 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...
how about when it's plain wrong ? or it's applying a rule that (most of the time) is correct, but not *all* the time ? or it complains about code that your patch isnt touching (as is the case here) ? or it complains about code that is being imported (from linux or other projects) ? so i stand by my statement that checkpatch is a tool and does *not* get the final say. blindly following a tool is good -- if you're blind. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
