[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 01/20] sandbox: Add architecture header files

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 09 October 2011 15:28:16 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Simon Glass wrote:
>> > 0 errors, 44 warnings for
>> > 0001-sandbox-Add-architecture-header-files.patch: warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,30: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,32: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,34: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,36: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,44: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,54: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,66: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,76: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,88: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning:
>> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,90: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> >
>> > (These are the bitops and seem to have volatile in all the other archs
>> > also.)
>>
>> Existence of bad code examples is no excuse for submitting new bad
>> code.
>
> maybe we should take this up with LKML rather than forcing our code to
> randomly fork ...
> -mike
>

Maybe, but I suspect they would take a patch, given that their own
checkpatch complains about it.

Regards,
Simon