lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> you picked an borderline case without showing the full effects of your
> choice of style - but still even in this example you are wrong i
> believe. [...]

and let me give an example with the your very own code that you wrote
and maintain, drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c:

errors lines of code errors/KLOC
drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c 10 490 20.4

that's pretty OK code, but not perfect, the 10 errors are:

ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: need spaces around that '=' (ctx:VxV)
ERROR: need spaces around that '<' (ctx:VxV)
ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL

so just because you disagreed with those 2 errors that relate to '=' and
'<' (and where accoding to CodingStyle checkpatch.pl is correct), you
disregarded the other 8 very valid complaints that checkpatch.pl had.
(the final one even negatively affects the size of the kernel)

and this is the experience i made in general: the checkpatch.pl benefits
far outweigh the costs, even if you disagree with a particular rule of
checkpatch.pl. When you came to Linux you already had to change your
coding style quite radically, correct?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-25 14:49    [W:0.166 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site