lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes
From
Date
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 17:47 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
> Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings? Most of what remains are
> "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well,
> or am I safe to leave these?

I'm personally not a big fan of non-enum typedefs unless
the typedef hides some arch or size specific information
that's otherwise hard to handle.

I think struct/function/native type equivalent typedefs
are better removed.

coccinelle is a good tool for this.

I rather like enum typedefs, but that's not a common view
in lk land.

> I ask because these changes will be huge, and
> are unlikely to improve readability (but I don't know where the kernel
> community stands on having billions of typedefs everywhere.

I counted slightly less than billions. I got 281.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-22 05:21    [W:0.157 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site