On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 20:56:09 Joe Hershberger wrote:
WARNING:NEW_TYPEDEFS: do not add new typedefs This seems rather limiting... I'm not sure why even Linux would want this, at least when it applies to typedefs of structs. It makes sense if it's a new typedef for int or something.
Linux has been discouraging new struct typedefs. but it is too broad and catches typedefs that we want (like posix_types.h).
So it's a candidate to ignore, right?
WARNING:VOLATILE: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt Sometimes using volatile is correct... not sure how this fits in with a policy of 0 errors and 0 warnings... Should it be ignored or not?
"it depends". we'll have to see the specific instance.
That's what I was getting at... should we ignore it in checkpatch and simply review any new volatile variables? Or should we not ignore it in checkpatch and have exceptions to "no errors, no warnings"?
I also think that for code cleanup where progress can be incremental, the rules may need to be a little more lenient.
Thanks, -Joe