From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Stone Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:56:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c Message-Id: <54F79B9C.1030901@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <1424824585-6405-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <1424824585-6405-2-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <1528624.HcuCny6IaW@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1528624.HcuCny6IaW@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , al.stone@linaro.org Cc: lenb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, robert.moore@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote: >> From: Al Stone >> >> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >> classes: >> >> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >> >> Signed-off-by: Al Stone > > checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be > more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. > > The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so > it should not be used to justify changes in that code. > > Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. > > Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I misunderstand from that reply? If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term maintenance type work. [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/4/749 -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@redhat.com -----------------------------------