From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] e1000 driver remove checkpatch errors, warnings and checks. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:18:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1444785486.9184.40.camel@perches.com> References: <1444772362-25090-1-git-send-email-januszwolak@awokados.com.pl> <1444772362-25090-5-git-send-email-januszwolak@awokados.com.pl> <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Janusz Wolak , jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, shannon.nelson@intel.com, carolyn.wyborny@intel.com, donald.c.skidmore@intel.com, matthew.vick@intel.com, john.ronciak@intel.com, mitch.a.williams@intel.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Janusz Wolak To: Alexander Duyck Return-path: In-Reply-To: <561D846E.1050405@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 15:23 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > Please don't just blindly > follow checkpatch as it can give out erroneous information. > > Looking over most of this patch series it seems like it is taking > readability in the wrong direction and reducing the ability to maintain > the driver since this code has been "maintenance only" for some time > now. If somebody comes up with a legitimate fix for an issue at some > point in the future they will need to work around these patches in order > to back-port it into a stable release and that just hurts maintainability. > > I'd say this whole series should be rejected on the grounds that this > driver is mostly stable and should only really be modified for bug fixes > at this point. If we really need to go through and do a checkpatch > sweep we should probably just focus on serious errors only instead of > going astray and chasing down things that are false hits or minor issues > that are mostly a matter of preference. Excellent advice.