On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 17:47 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:22:27AM -0700, 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. And that's where it's the maintainer's job to educate, inform, reject > > I haven't seen many instances of bad patch submittals > > on netdev. Is this mostly an issue for staging? > > I don't follow netdev so I can't say. > > Most of the time data is aligned at a 4 byte mark so probably you are > just getting lucky. All typical Ethernet frames have 1 of the 2 addresses on an even byte boundary but not 4 byte aligned. Most all of the is_<foo>_ether_addr tests assume __aligned(2) > I really doubt that netdev checkpatch newbies know > about alignment... I think that's a learning opportunity... > > Maybe a downgrade to CHK requiring --strict is OK. > > I would actually like to turn --strict by default in staging. I recall a suggested patch for that. > Checkpatch is a good concept, but it should only do safe things instead > of telling newbies to send buggy patches. checkpatch isn't just for the inexperienced. It's an oversight tester and a style tool. Degrading it doesn't make it better. -- 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
