Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 22 May 2015, Drokin, Oleg wrote:

> Removal of lustre-added typedefs is worthwhile, actually.
> I scraped the surface some time ago, but could not complete it back then.
>
> On May 21, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Michael Shuey wrote:
>
> > I've been killing off a *lot* of checkpatch warnings, and I'm probably getting a tad overzealous.  I'll drop these from the patch series next time I rebase, and avoid doing this in the future.  Thanks for the input.
> >
> > Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings?  Most of what remains are "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well, or am I safe to leave these?  I ask because these changes will be huge, and are unlikely to improve readability (but I don't know where the kernel community stands on having billions of typedefs everywhere.

There is discussion in the kernel documentation about typedefs.  Typedefs 
on structure types are particularly discouraged, to my recollection.

julia


> > --
> > Mike Shuey
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
> > > Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> > []
> > > @@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_console_error(int rc, lnet_nid_t peer_nid,
> > >       switch (rc) {
> > >       /* "normal" errors */
> > >       case -ECONNREFUSED:
> > > -             CNETERR("Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> > > -                     libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid),
> > > -                     &peer_ip, peer_port);
> > > +             CNETERR(
> > > +                     "Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> > > +                     libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid), &peer_ip, peer_port);
> >
> > These are not improvements and checkpatch messages aren't dicta.
> >
> > Please don't convert code unless the conversion makes it better
> > for a human reader.
> >
> > These don't.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/