Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 21 May 2015 20:06:05 -0700 |
| |
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.
| |