From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759073AbXGXSii (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:38:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752994AbXGXSib (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:38:31 -0400 Received: from hellhawk.shadowen.org ([80.68.90.175]:4347 "EHLO hellhawk.shadowen.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752323AbXGXSia (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:38:30 -0400 Message-ID: <46A6471F.1090003@shadowen.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:38:23 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Engelhardt CC: "Kok, Auke" , Andrew Morton , Randy Dunlap , Joel Schopp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08 References: <740c90243aaa6f6d4640d71230c4fa27@pinky> <46A53F3A.7060509@intel.com> <46A5E39D.7030009@shadowen.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jul 24 2007 12:33, Andy Whitcroft wrote: >>> Warning on multiple declarations on a line is nice, but IMO really too >>> verbose (why is "int i, j;" bad? Did C somehow change syntax today?). >> No the normal response is two fold: >> >> 1) "what the heck are i and j those are meaningless names" > > Can we at least assume the submitter is sane in some ways? > i and j are picked for obvious iterater values - you would not want > verbosify that to fruit_iterator and process_iterator or whatever > because it's a hell lot more typing. > It takes more than a few Perl regexes to actually grasp the semantics > of whether "i" is useful or not. I was mearly quoting the what I'd seen. I am completely ambivalent on the whole process. I had assumed when we updated the documentation to strongly indicate that this was a style guide not a robot with patch veto power that people would realise they could ignore those things they disagreed with and things would be good. checkpatch is only intended to tell you what a Reviewer is likely to pick up and winge about and is intended to save _them_ time, their time generally being more limited that yours if for no other reason than you want your patch in, and they may have no vested interest. That said I want it to be as unannoying as we can and we will have loosened most of the checks you do not like in the next release. -apw