On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > 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 Silly is the key word here. Just don't do it. > The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful > to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude. I agree. Just don't do it. > > 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? I hope not. Looks plain wrong to me. This wont prevents idiots from being idiots. All it does is make things more difficult for the rest of us. > > ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period. > > Disagree. The compiler doesn't care. Which is good, because this has nothing to do with the compiler. > The value of consistency in reducing defects is very hard to quantify. That's not the only purpose of consistency. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- 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
