On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 17:49, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, I will gladly disagree. checkpatch is an advisory tool. > It has no such final authority to enforce /must/. > > /must/ would OK on syntax errors that must be fixed before they will compile. fwiw, Joe Perches raised the same point in private conversation so there are two votes against this patch. I submitted it knowing that it might be controversial, but I went with the rest of the wording in checkpatch. Other errors have similar wording, for example prohibited, but that does not mean I am hell-bent on arguing this point. Personally, I feel that warnings are suggestions and errors are hard limits, but it is, of course, OK to disagree with this stance. This is part of the reason why I submitted it as three separate patches instead of a single one. This decision is not mine to make in any case. Dropping it is totally fine by me. Thanks for your feedback, Richard PS: As I am new to the whole concept of touching the large scary kernel let me use this opportunity to ask if I should expect answers on the other patch emails or if they are just merged zsh-style: Silently and you will notice what went through when you pull a few days later. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
