From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:13:47 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/6] TFTP server
In-Reply-To: <1302796377-3321-1-git-send-email-luca.ceresoli@comelit.it>
References: <4DA5682A.8040203@comelit.it>
	<1302796377-3321-1-git-send-email-luca.ceresoli@comelit.it>
Message-ID: <4DA71D3B.9080104@aribaud.net>
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 Luca,

Le 14/04/2011 17:52, Luca Ceresoli a ?crit :

> A note about checkpatch.pl.

:)

> Some of these patches do have checkpatch errors and/or warnings. These are all
> issues that were already present in the pre-existing code.
> An example from patch 2:
>
>   static void
> -PingHandler (uchar * pkt, unsigned dest, unsigned src, unsigned len)
> +PingHandler (uchar * pkt, unsigned dest, IPaddr_t sip, unsigned src,
> +unsigned len)
>   {
>
> Raises:
> * ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> * WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '('
>
> As I didn't touch the pointer parameters nor the stuff before the '(' (but I
> changed the line somewhere else), should I also fix the checkpatch issues?
> And in case, should it be a separate patch to make it cleaner?

My opinion is that you should make sure that at least the code you touch 
is checkpatch-clean, so yes, you should fix that; but there is no need 
to submit 'checkpatch-compliance' patches. Just fix the line here so 
that checkpatch does not complain.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.