On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 16:30 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 12:35 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Most people sending checkpatch.pl fixes don't know how to verify the > > > alignment. This checkpatch warning just encourages newbies to try > > > introduce bugs. Patch submitters tell us that they just sed the code > > > and it's the job for the maintainer to check that it's correct. > > > > I haven't seen many instances of bad patch submittals > > on netdev. Is this mostly an issue for staging? > > > > Maybe a downgrade to CHK requiring --strict is OK. [] > I think it is too bad to have a piece of knowledge that was apparent be > made more obscure. Why not just change the checkpatch warning to make > more explicit that a lot of expertise is required to make the change? Any wordsmithing appreciated. Maybe something like: from: Prefer ether_addr_copy() over memcpy() if the Ethernet addresses are __aligned(2) to: Where both Ethernet addresses are guaranteed to be __aligned(2), prefer ether_addr_copy() over memcpy() That won't stop people from blindly following any message. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
