Le 14/04/2011 01:30, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 16:23:20 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
btw. I suspect the change is to keep checkpatch.pl happy about the line length.
also, checkpatch is a tool in the toolbox. people should not be blindly following it, but reviewing its output to see what should be changed and which should be ignored.
if checkpatch is complaining about code that you arent changing, then you probably shouldnt worry about it. especially when the only thing you're doing is changing style.
I tend to see this "don't worry about some checkpatch.pl messages" appraoch as similar to "don't worry about some C compiler warnings". in that indeed "you probably shouldn't worry about it", and the key is "probably": when it bites you back later on, you realize you "probably" should have worried. If you apply a zero-C-warning policy, then a zero-checkpatch-warning policy makes sense as well...
... with the exception of Linux-centric warning or a coding style warning which would conflict with U-Boot's coding style -- anyone interested in introducing 'flavors' or 'style' in checkpatch.pl, with oone Linux and one U-Boot flavor/style to begin with?
So ignoring /some specific/ checkpatch.pl diagnostic is ok, but that's as long as it is established that the specific diagnostic is purely linux-centric" or voluntarily ignored as a coding rule; but then we'd need a list of such 'non-warnings' somewhere on the Wiki, I think, along with a rationale for ignoring it.
-mike
Amicalement,