From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:24:16 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [STATUS] "Quality" of patches / testing.
In-Reply-To: <4E9D4552.5040506@gmail.com>
References: <20111018062310.61320140797D@gemini.denx.de>
	<4E9D21F8.40100@gmail.com> <4E9D4552.5040506@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111018122416.483205d6@lmajewski.digital.local>
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

Hi,

> I guess it will be doable to have some scripts/prepare-patch which
> runs a) git format-patch
>  b) checkpatch on the patch

I'm a bit confused.

Joe Hershberger has prepared a following patch:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/119083/

Is this THE ONE checkpatch version which we shall use (including its
config file)? 

I've used it for my patch sets and I can say that warnings like:

WARNING: min() should probably be min_t(unsigned int, amount_left,
mod_data.buflen) 

and

WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strtoul
#4358:

are still present.

Those are Linux kernel specific.

Shall I not care about them and submit patches with non zero warnings
output from checkpatch?

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung Poland R&D Center
Platform Group