On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Joe Hershberger, > > In message > <CANr=Z=y+q6aoj-+gkc+ydeapgclsaqkpczamhjcrnwts9jx...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: >> >> I'm attempting to make the files I touched in several recent >> patch-series chechkpatch.pl compliant. >> >> I've hit several cases which fail and probably shouldn't. For each of >> these cases, should the warning / error just be ignored or reported to >> checkpatch maintainers or altered some other way? > > Please see this message / thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1130494/focus=1172475 > > It would be best if we > 1) copied the current checkpatch.pl from Linux to tools/checkpatch.pl > (which would also make it easier for all to use the same version) > and > 2) provide a customized U-Boot specific .config file that takes care > about things like the ones you list.
Hi Wolfgang, I've run into a few more that may be candidates to ignore. WARNING:CONSIDER_KSTRTO: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strtoul This one seems pretty clear and has been discussed before. WARNING:NEW_TYPEDEFS: do not add new typedefs This seems rather limiting... I'm not sure why even Linux would want this, at least when it applies to typedefs of structs. It makes sense if it's a new typedef for int or something. WARNING:VOLATILE: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt Sometimes using volatile is correct... not sure how this fits in with a policy of 0 errors and 0 warnings... Should it be ignored or not? Thanks, -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
