From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756210Ab3BVXGf (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:06:35 -0500 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:33389 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755117Ab3BVXGa (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:06:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1361574388.6168.6.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve CamelCase test for Page From: Joe Perches To: Shuah Khan Cc: Peter Hurley , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:06:28 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20130222204253.A37B931C1C1@corp2gmr1-1.hot.corp.google.com> <1361566784.2030.6.camel@joe-AO722> <1361570508.5608.10.camel@thor.lan> <1361571667.2030.13.camel@joe-AO722> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 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 dOn Fri, 2013-02-22 at 15:57 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > What are the guidelines on camelcase warnings on patches. A recent one > I ran into is on a variable in a structure and fixing it would require > changing the original variable. The same as all other checkpatch warnings. Ignore the ones you don't agree with. Errors maybe should be fixed. You should be able to ignore those too though. > One would have to change a large portion of the code to fix it. In > such cases, do we ignore this warning? Yes. Taste is always author's choice. Of course, lots of things depends on the upstream path and files you chose to work on. If you're working in drivers/net, most of these warnings seem more likely to get patches that have them rejected. If you're working on drivers/scsi, it seems you don't have to bother running checkpatch at all.