Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump > labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the > output of checkpatch (how is that related?) and now you pull statistics > out of your hat, like these numbers imply anything.
No, not out of a hat. Those are the results of a silly script that runs checkpatch on every .[ch] kernel file (but not tools/) with:
--show-types --terse --emacs --strict --no-summary --quiet -f
The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude.
> checkpatch was called checkPATCH for a reason.
That's why I promote the --force option to limit using checkpatch on files outside of staging.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332205/
Andrew? Are you going to apply that one day?
> ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period.
Disagree. The compiler doesn't care. The value of consistency in reducing defects is very hard to quantify.
| |