These rules seem excessively nit-picky.  Why are we adding more buckles on
the the straightjacket?  What actual bugs did the previous checkpatch allow
through?

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:

> CI has found a lot more to complain about in the current code base with
> the new checkpatch
>
> New results
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/odp-api-style-check/label=build/440/console
>
> I am not suggesting we go back and change it, as new code is added it will
> slowly clean up naturally, but the effect of the tighter rules can be seen.
>
> Previous rules here
> https://ci.linaro.org/job/odp-api-style-check/label=build/439/console
>
> On 14 May 2015 at 07:58, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Merged!
>>
>> Maxim.
>>
>> On 05/13/2015 13:49, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>>
>>> Update checkpatch. Add our local fixes. Plus fix lenght limit for log
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Maxim.
>>>
>>> Maxim Uvarov (2):
>>>    checkpatch: update to linux 4.1 rc-3
>>>    checkpatch: remove cunit warnings
>>>
>>> Taras Kondratiuk (1):
>>>    checkpatch: remove line length limit for odp log functions
>>>
>>>   scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2513
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>   1 file changed, 2183 insertions(+), 330 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lng-odp mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Holmes
> Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group
> Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lng-odp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>
>
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to