lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only
    From
    From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
    Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:44:57 +0100

    > * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
    >
    > > I strongly disagree still.
    > >
    > > Half the warnings I get when I have run checkpatch on things I've
    > > written were crap.
    >
    > could you please give me a file name as an example that i could
    > double-check myself? Thanks,

    I can't because I pacified it to cut down the review noise
    for the patch in question last time it happened.

    I can tell you one more example of things I strongly disagree with
    that it does, for example, such as telling me how to document
    spinlocks in datastructures.

    It wants a comment right above the spinlock_t member, but this
    totally ignores that perhaps I put a huge comment explaining
    the locking semantics elsewhere.

    It's a black and white tool in a grey world, it just sucks. And I'd
    be fine with that if people used it as a guide but people, especially
    kernel newbies, treat it as gospel and a way to contribe "useful"
    patches. They aren't useful, they're crap. Fix a bug instead of this
    automaton whitespace noise.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-25 10:45    [W:0.048 / U:61.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site