On Thursday 13 October 2011 13:14:34 Joe Hershberger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 20:56:09 Joe Hershberger wrote: > >> 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). > > So it's a candidate to ignore, right?
it's like the volatiles check. reviewed on a case by case basis. > >> 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. > > That's what I was getting at... should we ignore it in checkpatch and > simply review any new volatile variables? if checkpatch ignores it, people won't notice > Or should we not ignore it in checkpatch and have exceptions to "no errors, > no warnings"? i've always advocated not using checkpatch this way. it's simply another tool which has known bugs and doesn't cover realistic nuances. -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
