On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 15:35 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> 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? > > > > No. It's just a guideline. As far as I'm concerned, > > ignore every checkpatch message you don't agree with. > > BTW, I think this is becoming a major problem. I have had discussions > with various people who consider checkpatch as some sort of automatic > upstream compliance system. I'm a bit worried about that. People should > consider just as a tool next to other tools, not as the holy bible. Hi Kalle. As you probably know, I am not an upstream maintainer. For drivers/net and drivers/staging, the two primary upstream maintainers do seem to prefer that most all checkpatch messages be addressed before acceptance. Those two paths are ~20% of all patches. Most other maintainers don't seem to care so much. > Joe, when working with checkpatch documentation you could try to > emphasise that part (or it might be that you have already done that). Patches welcome. cheers, Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
