[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/5] Add Ethernet hardware MAC address framework to usbnet

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 14/04/2011 01:30, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 16:23:20 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> btw. I suspect the change is to keep checkpatch.pl happy about the line
>> length.
>
> also, checkpatch is a tool in the toolbox.  people should not be blindly
> following it, but reviewing its output to see what should be changed and which
> should be ignored.
>
> if checkpatch is complaining about code that you arent changing, then you
> probably shouldnt worry about it.  especially when the only thing you're doing
> is changing style.

I tend to see this "don't worry about some checkpatch.pl messages" 
appraoch as similar to "don't worry about some C compiler warnings". in 
that indeed "you probably shouldn't worry about it", and the key is 
"probably": when it bites you back later on, you realize you "probably" 
should have worried. If you apply a zero-C-warning policy, then a 
zero-checkpatch-warning policy makes sense as well...

... with the exception of Linux-centric warning or a coding style 
warning which would conflict with U-Boot's coding style -- anyone 
interested in introducing 'flavors' or 'style' in checkpatch.pl, with 
oone Linux and one U-Boot flavor/style to begin with?

So ignoring /some specific/ checkpatch.pl diagnostic is ok, but that's 
as long as it is established that the specific diagnostic is purely 
linux-centric" or voluntarily ignored as a coding rule; but then we'd 
need a list of such 'non-warnings' somewhere on the Wiki, I think, along 
with a rationale for ignoring it.

> -mike

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.