+ len = strlen(dn->full_name + 1);
+ bus_len = min(len, BUS_ID_SIZE - 1);
+ memcpy(dev->ofdev.dev.bus_id, dn->full_name + 1
+ + (len - bus_len), bus_len);
+ for (i = 0; i < bus_len; i++)
+ if (dev->ofdev.dev.bus_id[i] == '/')
+
> > +WARN("No need to cast return value.\n");
>
> Could the warning be more descriptive? This describes what, but it should also describe
> why; after all if somebody made this error they may not know they why.
I'm open to suggestions..
How about
WARN("No need to ca
+# check for pointless casting of kmalloc return
+ if ($rawline =~ /\*\)[ ]k[czm]alloc/) {
It looks to me like this will catch
foo = (char *) kmalloc(512);
but not
for = (char* )kmalloc(512);
I haven't tried it but how about something like:
if($rawline =~/\(.*\)\s*k[czm]alloc/
So, no we shouldn't separate out CodingStyle because
Better CodingStyle == less bugs
and
Better CodingStyle == more throughput for maintainers
To some extent yes.
But extreme codingstyling won't gain you anything.
Except for long and fruitless discussions.
If a tool says anything would be
Yep I think the consensus is we need a
"--i-don't-agree-just-check-things-which-will-get-me-rejected-out-of-hand"
option of some sort which will restrict output to the real errors.
No, the default should be to show only the real errors.
CodingStyle violations are real errors.
If we have agre
> checkpatch has been quite useful
for catching obviously broken things, and now it seems like it's just
overreaching. Perhaps this functionality can be split in to a lite
checkpatch for catching show-stoppers for application and then something
more akin to a CodingStyle validator for the folks
within the last 3 weeks, this script went from *really usable* to *a big
noise maker*.
As we (mostly Andy of late) add more checks (good) there is bound to be some code we just
didn't forsee that generates false positives (bad). You can see a consistent history of
cleaning these up as quickly
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
scripts/checkpatch.pl should be executable, make it so.
Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
Acked-by: Joel Schopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this l
The original suggestion was to count them and only complain if there
were "lots". I had thought though that the general consensus was that
#ifdef in C files was pretty much frowned upon. I must admit to working
to the "you must be able to justify all winges in the output" rather
than expecting t
This version brings a host of changes to cure false positives and
bugs detected on patches submitted to lkml and -mm. It also brings
a number of new tests in response to reviews, of particular note:
- catch use of volatile
- allow deprecated functions to be listed in feature-removal-schedule
Methinks it should do `exit 1' if anything was detected.
[Joel in case you'd not spotted this discussion, your
patchstylecheckemail script was found ... Also this has produced a
little patch series improving the tool. Where would you like that sent?]
Heh. It's pretty crude but I've found i
11 matches
Mail list logo
