On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:09:20PM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > I agree that you should not do patches just to silence a static control program. > > Concerning (len >= BUSID_SIZE) I agree! But I usually try to change as > little as possible in the patches I do. But perhaps I should not think > that way. The "one thing per patch" rule is tricky for a lot of people when they start upstream kernel programming. 1) If you are going to need to backport a patch then write the simplest version you can and do any cleanup in a later patch. 2) Most of these patches will not need to back ported. The "one thing" is about how you describe the patch. You're allowed to make minor closely related changes. In this case the one thing would be, "Clean up string handling in xxx()". The commit message would say: cppcheck has a false positive here. I looked at the code and it's ok, but a bit messy. I have cleaned it up by doing: 1) use strclpy() or whatever 2) cleanup a condition 3) remove obvious comments 4) blah blah blah The new code is simpler and doesn't generate a cppcheck warning. Where checkpatch.pl get into trouble is that they say "I am doing one thing and it is to fix everything in filename.c". That's everything and not "one thing". regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
