On Wednesday 12 October 2011 20:56:09 Joe Hershberger wrote: > WARNING:CONSIDER_KSTRTO: consider using kstrto* in preference to > simple_strtoul This one seems pretty clear and has been discussed before.
i think we were going to add a .checkpatch.conf to the top level where we could add all the ignored tests > 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. Linux has been discouraging new struct typedefs. but it is too broad and catches typedefs that we want (like posix_types.h). > 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? "it depends". we'll have to see the specific instance. -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
