From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 935619D for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E67310F for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:17:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:17:01 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Josh Triplett Message-ID: <20160829191701.GL4129@mwanda> References: <1472330452.26978.23.camel@perches.com> <20160829190618.GF4180@mwanda> <20160829191020.GB27600@cloud> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160829191020.GB27600@cloud> Cc: Joe Perches , Greg KH , Sasha Levin , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, LKML Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:10:20PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:06:18PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > I would like a couple changes which you know already: > > > > 1) Get rid of PREFER_ETHER_ADDR_COPY and similar because the people who > > send checkpatch.pl fixes aren't qualified to say when it's legal or not > > so they sometimes introduce bugs. > > I do think we should have *something* that catches such things. > Perhaps not checkpatch.pl, though. Perhaps a compiler plugin that > generates additional warnings, and can perhaps use more global > information to determine legality? Perhaps. But that shouldn't delay us from deleting this code which just encourages newbies to introduce bugs. regards, dan carpenter