Joe Perches wrote: > The article recommends running checkpatch and fixing the various > non-conforming style elements the output produces. Hmm. I thought that "style cleanup only" patches were generally frowned upon? For one because it requires some familiarity with the kernel coding style to make sane choices in situations that are debatable and blindly following checkpatch is seldom good. And also to avoid needless merge issues. I've seen several patches drift by the last few days where I thought some of the changes were definitely not improvements. > Convert printk(KERN_<level> to pr_<level>( > Removes unnecessary parenthesis from return > Add space after if, for and while > Convert "for (foo;bar;baz)" to "for (foo; bar; baz)" > Removes multiple semicolons > Convert leading spaces to tabs Maybe I missed it, but you should certainly add removal of trailing space. And possibly remove spaces before the closing ";" after statements. Maybe the script should print a large warning (unless -q is used?) that all changes should be carefully reviewed manually and not combined with functional changes, and have a pointer to Documentation/SubmittingPatches? Cheers, FJP P.S. I wonder what traffic the advice to mail lkml when "I have a line of code that's over 80 chars" is going to generate... _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
