Re: [PATCH 2/3] SCRIPTS: s/should/must/ for all ERRORs

[Richard Hartmann]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 17:49, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, I will gladly disagree. Âcheckpatch is an advisory tool.
> It has no such final authority to enforce /must/.
>
> /must/ would OK on syntax errors that must be fixed before they will compile.

fwiw, Joe Perches raised the same point in private conversation so there
are two votes against this patch.

I submitted it knowing that it might be controversial, but I went with
the rest of the wording in checkpatch. Other errors have similar
wording, for example prohibited, but that does not mean I am hell-bent
on arguing this point.

Personally, I feel that warnings are suggestions and errors are hard
limits, but it is, of course, OK to disagree with this stance. This is
part of the reason why I submitted it as three separate patches instead
of a single one.

This decision is not mine to make in any case. Dropping it is totally
fine by me.


Thanks for your feedback,
Richard


PS: As I am new to the whole concept of touching the large scary kernel
let me use this opportunity to ask if I should expect answers on the
other patch emails or if they are just merged zsh-style: Silently and
you will notice what went through when you pull a few days later.
--
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/