From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] IB/core: Align coding style of ib_device_cap_flags structure Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:20:57 -0800 Message-ID: <20151221202057.GA6403@infradead.org> References: <1450606571-15877-1-git-send-email-leon@leon.nu> <1450606571-15877-2-git-send-email-leon@leon.nu> <20151221062252.GE3860@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <20151221080346.GA21779@infradead.org> <20151221163603.GF3860@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151221163603.GF3860-W4f6Xiosr+yv7QzWx2u06xL4W9x8LtSr@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "ira.weiny" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Leon Romanovsky , Doug Ledford , linux-rdma , Leon Romanovsky List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:36:03AM -0500, ira.weiny wrote: > It would be nice if we were not having to do this for staging then. Also > perhaps it should be removed from checkpatch --strict? Don't use checkpatch --strict ever. It's full of weird items that defintively don't apply to the majority of the kernel code base. > Where are the guidelines for when one can ignore checkpatch and when they can > not? It would be nice to know when we can "be developers" vs "being robots to > some tool". I think checkpatch is generally useful, and the errors without --strict are something we I haven't found any false positives. The warnings are about 90% useful but something are just weird. For --strict all bets are off. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html