On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 02:56:05PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Jan 18 2008 11:45, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> This is against x86/mm. > > > >hm, it has checkpatch failures - > > All false positives.
The spacing thing is definately a matter for argument elsewhere. I cirtainly have no real oppinion on the matter. As has been said elsewhere the coding style is not meant to be as everyone likes it, more a minimally offensive common position generating consistancy out of caos. Checkpatch is _meant_ to push you towards the recommendations in CodingStyle, that is the definative resource; common sense should prevail over it. <standard message>checkpatch is a style guide only, think about its output and be prepared to justify any non-complience.</standard message>. The second one is a clear falsie which I believe I have fixed for the next release, rather over zelous "possible type" detection has fired here. ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" #123: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/microcode.c:248: + EXT_SIGNATURE_SIZE * i; Cheers. -apw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
