On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from >> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these >> classes: >> >> -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice >> -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) >> -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required. >> >> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> > > checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be > more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel. > > The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so > it should not be used to justify changes in that code. > > Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9]. > > Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I misunderstand from that reply? If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term maintenance type work. [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/4/749 -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
