On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump > labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the > output of checkpatch (how is that related?) and now you pull statistics > out of your hat, like these numbers imply anything. No, not out of a hat. Those are the results of a silly script that runs checkpatch on every .[ch] kernel file (but not tools/) with: --show-types --terse --emacs --strict --no-summary --quiet -f The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude. > checkpatch was called checkPATCH for a reason. That's why I promote the --force option to limit using checkpatch on files outside of staging. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332205/ Andrew? Are you going to apply that one day? > ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period. Disagree. The compiler doesn't care. The value of consistency in reducing defects is very hard to quantify. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
