From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 03:06:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes Message-Id: <1432263965.20840.85.camel@perches.com> List-Id: References: <1432237849-53947-1-git-send-email-shuey@purdue.edu> <1432237849-53947-11-git-send-email-shuey@purdue.edu> <1432242004.20840.68.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michael Shuey Cc: "Drokin, Oleg" , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "hpdd-discuss@lists.01.org" , lustre-deve@lists.lustre.org On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 17:47 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote: > Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings? Most of what remains are > "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well, > or am I safe to leave these? I'm personally not a big fan of non-enum typedefs unless the typedef hides some arch or size specific information that's otherwise hard to handle. I think struct/function/native type equivalent typedefs are better removed. coccinelle is a good tool for this. I rather like enum typedefs, but that's not a common view in lk land. > I ask because these changes will be huge, and > are unlikely to improve readability (but I don't know where the kernel > community stands on having billions of typedefs everywhere. I counted slightly less than billions. I got 281.