From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753604AbZBPQNb@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753604AbZBPQNb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:13:31 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751326AbZBPQNV
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:13:21 -0500
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:42685 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753178AbZBPQNS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:13:18 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:13:10 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>,
       Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@gmail.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in
	kernel/kallsyms.c
Message-ID: <20090216161310.GV28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <ea11fea30902151034s5444efabw455c1dac1b875086@mail.gmail.com> <20090215184752.GA4970@uranus.ravnborg.org> <4999650C.6030700@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216132822.GC17996@elte.hu> <4999717F.7090205@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216141917.GA8981@elte.hu> <499984C1.6020004@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216155023.GA4422@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090216155023.GA4422@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:50:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, 
> > > ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug 
> > > or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to
> > > mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already 
> > > got merged. I dont understand your point.
> > 
> > I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what
> > the effect of the patch is and describe this".
> 
> Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be 
> mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable.

Hell, yes.  I'm sick and tired of "$DRIVER: fix sparse warnings <something
far off-screen when looking at it in mutt on xterm>" kind of subjects,
while we are at it.  Mention the tool when that adds information useful for
understanding commit message and patch; otherwise you are just adding noise.