On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where
> > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump
> > labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the
> > output of checkpatch (how is that related?) and now you pull statistics
> > out of your hat, like these numbers imply anything.
> No, not out of a hat. Those are the results of a silly script that
> runs checkpatch on every .[ch] kernel file (but not tools/) with:
> --show-types --terse --emacs --strict --no-summary --quiet -f
Silly is the key word here. Just don't do it.
> The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful
> to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude.
I agree. Just don't do it.
> > checkpatch was called checkPATCH for a reason.
> That's why I promote the --force option to limit using checkpatch on
> files outside of staging.
> Andrew? Are you going to apply that one day?
I hope not. Looks plain wrong to me. This wont prevents idiots from
being idiots. All it does is make things more difficult for the rest of
> > ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period.
> Disagree. The compiler doesn't care.
Which is good, because this has nothing to do with the compiler.
> The value of consistency in reducing defects is very hard to quantify.
That's not the only purpose of consistency.
SUSE L3 Support
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html