From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/rdma/hfi1: set Gen3 half-swing for integrated devices Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:42:58 +0300 Message-ID: <20151105184258.GM7289@mwanda> References: <1446689168-21620-1-git-send-email-ira.weiny@intel.com> <20151105073448.GQ18797@mwanda> <20151105164121.GA14837@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151105164121.GA14837@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" To: "ira.weiny" Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dledford@redhat.com, Dean Luick , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:41:23AM -0500, ira.weiny wrote: > Is this an example where we should ignore the line lengths of checkpatch to > preserve the readability of the code? Honestly, you can't fight checkpatch, especially in staging. Rejecting patches is a drain on your emotions and your energy. We accept all checkpatch fixes if they are half way decent. Maybe just put a comment in the header about the full hardware name? This patch breaks cscope and we don't end up actually using the hardware name in the end... regards, dan carpenter