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. > > > -- 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