From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:13:11 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/5] Add Ethernet hardware MAC address framework to usbnet In-Reply-To: <201104150356.04503.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1302655572-31544-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <201104140212.41557.vapier@gentoo.org> <4DA6997E.2050700@aribaud.net> <201104150356.04503.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4DA7FE17.8000105@aribaud.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 15/04/2011 09:56, Mike Frysinger a ?crit : > On Thursday, April 14, 2011 02:51:42 Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Le 14/04/2011 08:12, Mike Frysinger a ?crit : >>> so i stand by my statement that checkpatch is a tool and does *not* get >>> the final say. blindly following a tool is good -- if you're blind. >> >> When it emits warnings, the C toolchain is also just a tool and does >> also not have the final say ; that's why they are warnings and not >> errors, because they might indicate something wrong, or not. > > sounds like you agree with me. nothing left to say :p. > -mike I agree about those being tools. What I disagree upon is that just because they're tools we should disregard their warnings, or more precisely, I advocate setting common rules about which warnings we can disregard and which ones we cannot -- after all, the common rules are there already for C warnings and they're quite simple :) Amicalement, -- Albert.