Removal of lustre-added typedefs is worthwhile, actually.
I scraped the surface some time ago, but could not complete it back then.
On May 21, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Michael Shuey wrote:
> I've been killing off a *lot* of checkpatch warnings, and I'm probably getting a tad overzealous. I'll drop these from the patch series next time I rebase, and avoid doing this in the future. Thanks for the input.
>
> Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings? Most of what remains are "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well, or am I safe to leave these? I ask because these changes will be huge, and are unlikely to improve readability (but I don't know where the kernel community stands on having billions of typedefs everywhere.
>
> --
> Mike Shuey
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
> > Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> []
> > @@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_console_error(int rc, lnet_nid_t peer_nid,
> > switch (rc) {
> > /* "normal" errors */
> > case -ECONNREFUSED:
> > - CNETERR("Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> > - libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid),
> > - &peer_ip, peer_port);
> > + CNETERR(
> > + "Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> > + libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid), &peer_ip, peer_port);
>
> These are not improvements and checkpatch messages aren't dicta.
>
> Please don't convert code unless the conversion makes it better
> for a human reader.
>
> These don't.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
