[U-Boot] checkpatch compliance

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 13 October 2011 13:14:34 Joe Hershberger wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 20:56:09 Joe Hershberger wrote:
> >> WARNING:NEW_TYPEDEFS: do not add new typedefs
> >> This seems rather limiting... I'm not sure why even Linux would want
> >> this, at least when it applies to typedefs of structs.  It makes sense
> >> if it's a new typedef for int or something.
> > 
> > Linux has been discouraging new struct typedefs.  but it is too broad and
> > catches typedefs that we want (like posix_types.h).
> 
> So it's a candidate to ignore, right?

it's like the volatiles check.  reviewed on a case by case basis.

> >> WARNING:VOLATILE: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> >> Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> >> Sometimes using volatile is correct... not sure how this fits in with
> >> a policy of 0 errors and 0 warnings...  Should it be ignored or not?
> > 
> > "it depends".  we'll have to see the specific instance.
> 
> That's what I was getting at... should we ignore it in checkpatch and
> simply review any new volatile variables?

if checkpatch ignores it, people won't notice

> Or should we not ignore it in checkpatch and have exceptions to "no errors,
> no warnings"?

i've always advocated not using checkpatch this way.  it's simply another tool 
which has known bugs and doesn't cover realistic nuances.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20111013/41b307a0/attachment.pgp