On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:15:40 +1000 Graeme Russ graeme.russ@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Detlev Zundel dzu@denx.de wrote:
Hi,
As a base for discussion, what about this:
Use common sense in interpreting the results of checkpatch. Warnings that clearly only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored. Also warnings produced for _context lines_ rather than actual changes can also be ignored.
One man's common sense is another's idiocy
I vote for a zero warnings, zero errors U-Boot specific checkpatch
I vote for "checkpatch is a tool that can help you find some style problems, but is imperfect, and the things it complains about are of varying importance". If you insist on zero warnings, what's the difference between a warning and an error? And will there then be a U-Boot-specific coding style document to match? Will anyone that wants to submit a patch that checkpatch erroneously complains about have to first submit a patch for checkpatch (first learning Perl if need be)?
There's a lot more "common sense" that needs to be applied when writing software than where to stick what kind and amount of whitespace. Guidelines are good -- zero-tolerance obedience to a script, not so much.
-Scott