RE: [RFC] Port TI DSP BRIDGE for a new dedicated branch in linux-omap

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Focusing on checkpatch errors is a bit deceptive. It is
> perfectly possible to be "checkpatch clean" yet the code
> has lots of issues left. For example checkpatch cannot tell
> that CSL_Strlen() can be replaced with strlen() from kernel.

-- CSL module is worked on. We will send this patch this week.


Thank you,
Best regards,
Hari

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riku Voipio [mailto:riku.voipio@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:13 AM
> To: Woodruff, Richard
> Cc: Felipe Contreras; Tony Lindgren; Hiroshi DOYU; linux-
> omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; soni.trilok@xxxxxxxxx; Kanigeri, Hari; Ramirez Luna,
> Omar; Gupta, Ramesh; felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx; Pasam, Vijay
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Port TI DSP BRIDGE for a new dedicated branch in linux-
> omap
> 
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 03:16:29PM -0500, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> > Checkpatch.pl is just a guide.  Completely changing code for the tool
> isn't probably a good idea. It might even get you severally flamed on LKML
> :)  The recent threads are informative (ok to read, bad to be in).
> 
> > Incidentally, when I asked the person working these changes, they had
> reported 0 functional errors had been fixed by the checkpatch changes.  A
> lot of the noise was typedef reduction.
> 
> I don't think completly fair complaint.
> 
> checkpatch.pl is only meant to check that patches comply to the kernel
> Coding style. For a huge project such as Linux kernel, all code must
> be written in uniform style. DSP bridge has probably been written
> following TI's internal codingstyle documents, and as a first step
> it needs to be converted to follow the Linux codingstyle.
> 
> checkpatch not a static analysing tool, which would be
> neccessary for uncovering functional errors. For that we have sparse,
> and mainline kernel gets regularry checked with the coverity scanner.
> 
> Focusing on checkpatch errors is a bit deceptive. It is
> perfectly possible to be "checkpatch clean" yet the code
> has lots of issues left. For example checkpatch cannot tell
> that CSL_Strlen() can be replaced with strlen() from kernel.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Arm (vger)]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Linux Tegra]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Maemo Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux