> > I copied checkpatch elsewhere and ran it. > > Why do you want to copy checkpatch "someplace else"? > Instead of copy, I think you should soft link it.
Well, no, I have to distribute it with that. > > Regardless, the current code is utterly stupid - it prints a > > warning that it won't flag any structs, and then proceeds to flag > > all structs. > > > > If you must, send a patch to abort() [whatever the perl equivalent > > is] when the file can't be found, but as it is, the code is just > > idiotic. > > Maybe so. > > As is, your patch description is incomplete because > it doesn't mention your use case. I don't think that's relevant. The script is internally inconsistent, as I do mention in the commit log, which is worth fixing. johannes
