Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Dec 2014 14:35:54 -0800 (PST) | From | terry white <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by pr_warn() in mppe_rekey() |
| |
... ciao:
: on "12-4-2014" "Joe Perches" writ: : > Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux : > coding style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this : > update suggestion was also triggered by a warning from the script : > "checkpatch.pl". : : Probably not. : : Overly formalized coding style rules are perhaps : more of a barrier to entry than most want.
funny you should mention that. as nothing more than a casual observer, i'm noticing a "TIRED" sensation reading this thread. i have "0" confidence a "SERIOUS" participant's enthusiasm would remain untested. however, the "checkpatch.pl" warning suggests an assumed 'custom'. i can't tell if this a 'serious' issue, or "pickin' fly shit out of pepper". but from my reading of it, the "CODE" , and the "logic" driving it, is not the problem.
season's best ...
-- ... it's not what you see , but in stead , notice ...
| |