Re: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups- formatting only

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:44:57 +0100

> * David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/