Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:45:56 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |