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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans