Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes

Joe Perches
2015-05-22T03:06:11Z

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.