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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> you picked an borderline case without showing the full effects of your 
> choice of style - but still even in this example you are wrong i 
> believe. [...]

and let me give an example with the your very own code that you wrote 
and maintain, drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c:

                                    errors   lines of code   errors/KLOC
drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c         10             490          20.4

that's pretty OK code, but not perfect, the 10 errors are:

 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: need spaces around that '=' (ctx:VxV)
 ERROR: need spaces around that '<' (ctx:VxV)
 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: do not use C99 // comments
 ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL

so just because you disagreed with those 2 errors that relate to '=' and 
'<' (and where accoding to CodingStyle checkpatch.pl is correct), you 
disregarded the other 8 very valid complaints that checkpatch.pl had. 
(the final one even negatively affects the size of the kernel)

and this is the experience i made in general: the checkpatch.pl benefits 
far outweigh the costs, even if you disagree with a particular rule of 
checkpatch.pl. When you came to Linux you already had to change your 
coding style quite radically, correct?

	Ingo
--
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/