From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Cooper Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:04:07 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.1.20110421165402.04b12a50@localhost> References: <20110420115129.2a70418b@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <5.2.0.9.1.20110421165402.04b12a50@localhost> Message-ID: <20110421150407.GC3680@localhost> List-Id: 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 04:56:36PM +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote: > Is that even possible? The cosmetic patch itself will be surrounded > by context lines which may fire up a warning. So these lines need > to be changed as well to satisy checkpatch. But this new patch > will again include several context lines... until you have to fix up the > whole file. Or did I misunderstand? What's wrong with (cosmetically) fixing all the files that a patch touches? That way the project gets incremental cleanup of the code base as it evolves. (It would be easy to automate a check for whitespace-only patches to ease the job of the custodians. Line-breaking and other style changes might still require eyeballing.) -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u