On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:15:40 +1000 > Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Detlev Zundel <d...@denx.de> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> >> > >> > As a base for discussion, what about this: >> > >> > Use common sense in interpreting the results of checkpatch. Warnings >> > that clearly only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored. Also >> > warnings produced for _context lines_ rather than actual changes can >> > also be ignored. >> >> One man's common sense is another's idiocy >> >> I vote for a zero warnings, zero errors U-Boot specific checkpatch > > I vote for "checkpatch is a tool that can help you find some style problems, > but is imperfect, and the things it complains about are of varying > importance". If you insist on zero warnings, what's the difference between > a warning and an error? And will there then be a U-Boot-specific coding > style document to match? Will anyone that wants to submit a patch that > checkpatch erroneously complains about have to first submit a patch for > checkpatch (first learning Perl if need be)? > > There's a lot more "common sense" that needs to be applied when writing > software than where to stick what kind and amount of whitespace. > Guidelines are good -- zero-tolerance obedience to a script, not so much. >
Point taken. What about my other suggestion - A checkpatch summary with an expalation for any warnings or errors? See for example my heads-up for checkpatch warnings - http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090144.html Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
