On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in > checkpatch. The warnings look like: > > WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descriptive label names > #267: FILE: ./sound/ppc/beep.c:267: > + fail2: snd_ctl_remove(chip->card, beep_ctl); > > This generates slightly under 2000 new warnings. None of them are > false positives.
Please whitelist fs/btrfs/* from this type of checkpatch warning. Using the out: or err: is a very common pattern and nobody has complained so far, besides that I find it descriptive enough in most cases. Where it needs more description out_something is being used. My understanding is that developers that work on a particular subsystems like to see the same code patterns, whitespace style etc.. Local variations are possible and more or less tolerated. The checkpatch tool should IMHO catch the global style violations. Once it starts to interfere with local style variations it's becommig less useful as it requires extra rounds to tell people "please change it like that and don't listen to checkpatch". And pointing out minor style or whitespace issues mismatching the preferences is not what the reviewers should spend their time on. This kind of change does not help us, but I guess this is not the first you hear this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
