On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Michael Roth wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 12:01 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:55:39AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to only document "strict" guidelines, and treat
>>> checkpatch.pl warnings ("suggestions") as an extra "reward
On 04/01/2011 12:01 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:55:39AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
I'd prefer to only document "strict" guidelines, and treat
checkpatch.pl warnings ("suggestions") as an extra "reward" you get
for taking the time to run it.
I don't want to be punished
On 04/01/2011 11:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 1 April 2011 17:55, Michael Roth wrote:
But there *are* some warnings that make sense to complain about without
saying "you can't do this", like extern's in .c files: some cases are
exceptional.
I'd treat everything checkpatch says as a warning
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:55:39AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> I'd prefer to only document "strict" guidelines, and treat
> checkpatch.pl warnings ("suggestions") as an extra "reward" you get
> for taking the time to run it.
I don't want to be punished for running checkpatch.pl like I'm supposed
On 1 April 2011 17:55, Michael Roth wrote:
> But there *are* some warnings that make sense to complain about without
> saying "you can't do this", like extern's in .c files: some cases are
> exceptional.
I'd treat everything checkpatch says as a warning anyway, because it gets
confused by things
On 04/01/2011 11:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 1 April 2011 16:59, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 1 April 2011 16:20, Michael Roth wrote:
We also make C99 //comments a warning instead of an error, since they
don't actually violate QEMU's codi
On 1 April 2011 16:59, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 1 April 2011 16:20, Michael Roth wrote:
>>> We also make C99 //comments a warning instead of an error, since they
>>> don't actually violate QEMU's coding guidelines.
>>
>> We should eit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 April 2011 16:20, Michael Roth wrote:
>> We also make C99 //comments a warning instead of an error, since they
>> don't actually violate QEMU's coding guidelines.
>
> We should either update the guidelines or fix the script...
There are
On 1 April 2011 16:20, Michael Roth wrote:
> We also make C99 //comments a warning instead of an error, since they
> don't actually violate QEMU's coding guidelines.
We should either update the guidelines or fix the script...
-- PMM
Was playing around with Stefan's git hook for checkpatch.pl:
http://blog.vmsplice.net/2011/03/how-to-automatically-run-checkpatchpl.html
which seems really useful butter-finger coders such as myself. But some of
warnings/errors that have carried over from the kernel have made this approach
some
10 matches
Mail list logo
