From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752806AbdIBW6U (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2017 18:58:20 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0022.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.22]:40135 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752761AbdIBW6T (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2017 18:58:19 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:982:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2828:2895:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:9010:9012:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:12760:12895:13069:13311:13357:13439:13618:14659:21080:21611:21627:30029:30030:30034:30036:30054:30070:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: wheel67_e289f1e29e36 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1498 Message-ID: <1504393085.31325.3.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add missing types to checkpatch.pl --list-types From: Joe Perches To: Jean Delvare Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton , LKML Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 15:58:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170902230315.724835b5@endymion> References: <20170902175111.2fcd9e85@endymion> <1504369529.31325.1.camel@perches.com> <20170902211358.560ab0dc@endymion> <20170902230315.724835b5@endymion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 23:03 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Oh, btw, is there any purpose in listing a number in front of each > type? Not really. I did that because I wanted a header and because I had no idea how many of those types existed and I was too lazy to count. > It makes it look like one can pass that number instead of the > type name, however it doesn't work, and I don't think it should as the > numbering isn't stable and could change with any update of the script. True. > Can't we simplify the output and simply print the list of type names? If you want.