From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752400AbbC1Xyx (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 19:54:53 -0400 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65275 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751740AbbC1Xyu (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 19:54:50 -0400 Message-ID: <55173F45.5000202@nod.at> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 00:54:45 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shirish Gajera , Joe Perches CC: w.d.hubbs@gmail.com, chris@the-brannons.com, kirk@reisers.ca, samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, domagoj.trsan@gmail.com, mahfouz.saif.elyazal@gmail.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, roxanagabriela10@gmail.com, sulamiification@gmail.com, dilekuzulmez@gmail.com, daeseok.youn@gmail.com, aysemelikeyurtoglu@gmail.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, tapaswenipathak@gmail.com, vthakkar1994@gmail.com, speakup@linux-speakup.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: speakup: Fix warning of line over 80 characters. References: <20150328202139.GA12695@shirish-ThinkPad-Edge-E430> <1427577518.2715.8.camel@perches.com> <55171BAF.9050405@nod.at> <1427578519.2715.13.camel@perches.com> <20150328234436.GA15926@shirish-ThinkPad-Edge-E430> In-Reply-To: <20150328234436.GA15926@shirish-ThinkPad-Edge-E430> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 29.03.2015 um 00:44 schrieb Shirish Gajera: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 02:35:19PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 22:22 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Am 28.03.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Joe Perches: >>>> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:40 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Shirish Gajera wrote: >>>>>> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: >> [] >>>>> Instead of blindly adding newlines to silence checkpatch.pl, what >>>>> about reworking the code? >>>>> printf("%s\n", ..) cries for a puts(). >>>> >>>> There is no synth_puts >>> >>> So what? >>> Fix it! :-) >> >> Not sure that'd make the code better... ;-p >> >>> the whole code is horrible and lines other 80 chars are the *least* >>> problem. >> >> Dunno about how horrible it is, my guess is it works. >> >>> Submitting a patch just for the sake of silencing checkpatch.pl is a waste of time. >>> After applying this patch the driver 0 better than before. >> >> Agree with that. >> >> And truly, checkpatch is only a guide. >> >> Making the code better instead of merely style conforming >> should be the primary goal of patches. > > This is my first patch. Are you sure? http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/2015-January/013187.html > Actually on the website it's return that > "Pick a warning, and try to fix it. For your first patch, only pick one > warning. In the future you can group multiple changes into one patch, > but only if you follow the PatchPhilosophy of breaking each patch into > logical changes." > > My main aim is to get the patch in and get familier with the full system > (code checking,flow etc.). So, I am fixing simple warning. > > If this code require changes then I can do as part of future changes. The future is now, please address these issues now. :-) Again, blindly fixing checkpatch.pl warnings is worthless. Thanks, //richard