On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 05:15:59PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > Could you please run your patches through > scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict If you think it's bad now, you should have seen the state of the code when I first "inherited" it. :) Question -- as a matter of policy, is the goal to have a completely clean checkpatch run? I get that there should be no ERRORs, but WARNINGs/CHECKs are not considered fatal for a reason, right? As I write this, there are 550 WARNINGs and 243 CHECKs in the patch set. There are three general classes of WARNINGs in the code -- alignment/indentation issues (mostly caused by the conversion to pr_XXX() calls versus printk()), >80char lines (unfortunately resolving these tends to make the code less readable), and a boatload of CamelCase variable names (which this codebase inherited from vendor header files) I consider the >80 line stuff to be generally noise, but I'll revisit it once everything else is handled. As for your other suggestions, I'll add them to the to-do list and knock them out as time permits. Now that the major problems are solved, I guess it's time for the tedious patch iteration until it's acceptible for wireless-next. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Attachment:
pgp1Xgh_WJfLJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
