On 3/25/08, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
quoted text
> > > That is an objective (not just random assertation) reason against
> > > doing extensive changes of existing files like Joe's patchkit.
> >
> > Building a single allyesconfig for x86_32 and x86_64 before and after
> > and getting identical binaries is pretty strong.

true, but it's usually simplier to just compile the affected file.

quoted text
> checkpatch does not necessarily result in the same binaries. First
> there is the build date and then there might be changes like
> KERN_* prefixes added etc.
>
> And there might be code which is not covered under a single configuration,
> e.g. when both 32bit and 64bit x86 is changed.

in the last series of coding style patches i sent to both ingo and
bart i worked as follow:
- worked on files with agreement of the maintainer (or after he asked
me to do the cleanup)
- separated changes that modified the binary from the pure style changes.
-all the patch were compile tested and when possible a size/md5sum
verificatio was performed and added to the changelog.

i learned this "rules" learning from my mistakes and in the end it
worked well so i think the problem is in how people are using the
tool, not in the tool itself.

ciao,
--
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/