... cut down the review noise for the > patch in question last time it happened. ok ... arch/sparc64/kernel/cpu.c 17 155 109.6 arch/sparc64/solaris/ipc.c ... no need for any annoying "monkey patches". or take a look at the ...

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 09:17

... t result in crap) rather > than 148 patches of checkpatch vomit. Joe should not ... out unnecessary visual noise when reviewing patches and writing code, but i prefer to ... state, the flow of "explicit" checkpatch patches comes to a virtual standstill - ...

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 06:48

... > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches > > An obvious corollary to this highly inspired series of patches: Acked-by: David S. Miller I totally agree, checkpatch is just shit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: ...

linux-kernel - David Miller - Mar 23 2008 - 06:20

... Perches wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches >> An obvious corollary to this highly inspired series of patches: > > Acked-by: David S. Miller > > I totally agree, checkpatch is just shit. I disagree. It' ...

linux-kernel - Jiri Slaby - Mar 23 2008 - 08:06

... >> An obvious corollary to this highly inspired series of patches: > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller > ... work doesn't result in crap) rather than 148 patches of checkpatch vomit. Fixing sparse warnings properly fixes real issues ...

linux-kernel - David Miller - Mar 23 2008 - 08:19

... checkpatch work doesn't result in crap) rather > than 148 patches of checkpatch vomit. > > Fixing sparse warnings properly fixes real issues ... It may help track down some issues in yet prepared patch (it's checkpatch, not checkcode and it should be used ...

linux-kernel - Jiri Slaby - Mar 23 2008 - 08:24

... checkpatch work doesn't result in crap) rather > > than 148 patches of checkpatch vomit. > > > > Fixing sparse warnings properly fixes real ... It may help track down some issues > in yet prepared patch (it's checkpatch, not checkcode and it should be ...

linux-kernel - David Miller - Mar 23 2008 - 08:30

* David Miller wrote: > I strongly disagree still. > > Half the warnings I get when I have run checkpatch on things I've > written were crap. could you please give me a file name as an example that i could double-check

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 04:44

... be doing it for all actively > maintained areas of the kernel? Disagreement between checkpatch and maintainers preferred style. I've had a patch that fixed a bug and - while in the region - "cleaned up" the style for a single line. This line no ...

linux-kernel - Jörn - Mar 25 2008 - 07:11

... and maintainers preferred style. I've > had a patch that fixed a bug and - while in the ... you do, there is no > disagreement to deal with. :) note, all those patches are "Subject: x86: " and 99% of them is maintained by us x86 maintainers. Ingo ...

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 08:24

Ingo Molnar writes: > > On a more conceptual angle: "coding style", despite being entirely > "non-functional" (it does not affect the generated code), is still very > much an integral part of the code because source code is

linux-kernel - Andi Kleen - Mar 25 2008 - 08:26

... even see that warning unless you very explicitly do: checkpatch.pl --subjective Secondly, even about this "checkpatch.pl --subjective" check you are wrong. As someone who had to decode (way!) too many ...

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 09:05

... ones, besides the obvious "kernel old-timers are lazy to > change their ways" argument =B-) When you reject useful patches based on "this is not our preferred style", you piss people off. That is a significant reason why people choose to spend ...

linux-kernel - Jörn - Mar 25 2008 - 09:12

* Jörn Engel wrote: > > The current visual inconsistency between subsystems makes the Linux > > kernel appear rather unpleasant and unprofessional to new kernel > > developers. This is not just embarrasing to us (we want to

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 09:38

* Ingo Molnar wrote: > you picked an borderline case without showing the full effects of your > choice of style - but still even in this example you are wrong i > believe. [...] and let me give an example with the your very own

linux-kernel - Ingo Molnar - Mar 25 2008 - 09:45

... and will be fixed. The // I don't really care about. Send a patch if you do. Going over my logfs patch, I found several things that are either false positives or rather questionable in my book.

linux-kernel - Jörn - Mar 25 2008 - 12:07

> > 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

linux-kernel - Andi Kleen - Mar 25 2008 - 13:28

... 64bit x86 is changed. in the last series of coding style patches i sent to both ingo and bart i worked as follow: ... that modified the binary from the pure style changes. -all the patch were compile tested and when possible a size/md5sum verificatio was ...

linux-kernel - Paolo Ciarrocchi - Mar 25 2008 - 14:23

From: Ingo Molnar Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:17:08 +0100 > There can be fluctuations and artifacts, and obviously this is just > another (arbitrary) static metric that has no forced relationship with > real code quality - but in my

linux-kernel - David Miller - Mar 25 2008 - 19:09

... and will be fixed. The // I don't really care about. > Send a patch if you do. > > Going over my logfs patch, I found several things that are either false > positives or rather questionable in my book.

linux-kernel - Andy Whitcroft - Mar 26 2008 - 05:52