From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Detlev Zundel Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:19:47 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.1.20110421165402.04b12a50@localhost> (Fabian Cenedese's message of "Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:56:36 +0200") References: <20110420115129.2a70418b@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <5.2.0.9.1.20110421165402.04b12a50@localhost> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Fabi, > At 10:49 21.04.2011 -0400, Eric Cooper wrote: >>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. > > 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? It may become an iterative process. Fortunately our source files are finite, so this process has a fixpoint ;) Cheers Detlev -- debian is a prototype for a future version of emacs. -- Thien-Thi Nguyen in <7eekubiffq.fsf@ada2.unipv.it> -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de