From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Cooper <ecc@cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:49:11 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage?
In-Reply-To: <m2k4enekzm.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
References: <m2liz5gtr3.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
	<BANLkTin0aHgyFVi2_z8EJ1vCArO24Qot7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110420115129.2a70418b@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net>
	<m2k4enekzm.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
Message-ID: <20110421144911.GB3680@localhost>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:29:17PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> What about the problem with checkpatch errors in current code, i.e. the
> origin of this sentence:
> 
>   Also warnings produced for context lines (i.e. existing code) rather
>   than actual changes can also be ignored.

How about replacing it with this:

    If you encounter warnings for existing code, not modified by your
    patch, consider submitting a separate, cosmetic-only patch --
    clearly described as such -- that *precedes* your substantive
    patch.

-- 
Eric Cooper             e c c @ c m u . e d u