From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752403Ab3FRCgv (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:36:51 -0400 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:40587 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751430Ab3FRCgu (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:36:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1371523003.2088.4.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] silicom: checkpatch: errors caused by macros From: Joe Perches To: Greg KH Cc: Dan Carpenter , Lorenz Haspel , devel@linuxdriverproject.org, puff65537@bansheeslibrary.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, michael.banken@mathe.stud.uni-erlangen.de, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:36:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20130617211418.GA3219@kroah.com> References: <1371486386-8043-4-git-send-email-lorenz@badgers.com> <1371496814-26104-1-git-send-email-lorenz@badgers.com> <1371498132.2213.7.camel@joe-AO722> <20130617204922.GM5008@mwanda> <1371503023.2213.9.camel@joe-AO722> <20130617211418.GA3219@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 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 Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:03:43PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > Generally I think it's better that new submitters patches > > should go through more strict reviews and be as correct > > as possible. I think this is especially true for patches > > that are just checkpatch driven. > > I totally disagree, sorry. I'm unsurprised. We have different tastes. While whitespace only cleanup patches have some use, for these types of patches, I'm more interested in educating others what sorts of patches have higher value. o defects o style/readability o whitespace As always, ymmv.