Hi Graeme, > On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Detlev Zundel <d...@denx.de> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >> >>> >>> As a base for discussion, what about this: >>> >>> Use common sense in interpreting the results of checkpatch. Warnings >>> that clearly only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored. Also >>> warnings produced for _context lines_ rather than actual changes can >>> also be ignored. >> >> One man's common sense is another's idiocy >> >> I vote for a zero warnings, zero errors U-Boot specific checkpatch >> > > I also think that all patches should be submitted with a checkpatch > summary with an explaination for any errors or warnings - this will at > least save a little effort for the maintainers and reduce the number of > patches bounced only to have the checkpatch problems argued away > by the author anyway
When we accept 0 errors and 0 warnings only, then we will always see the same text :) As long as we are not there, I do agree but then we should come up with a recipe on how to automate this. I looked into git format-patch but it does not seem to have such an option. Does anyone have a clever one-liner for this? Cheers Detlev -- Math and Alcohol don't mix, so... PLEASE DON'T DRINK AND DERIVE [Motto of the society: Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving] -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot