From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751955AbXLZKi1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:38:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751481AbXLZKiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:38:18 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.179]:7021 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751470AbXLZKiR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:38:17 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YXb+ucQAtOjaJkt6ztLkADPkJx1oCzuX3t48jsAUvxTFTsZC41WJpX4FcA6Q5k7e6i0meHsfchnG7UNAOTmveiq++P/koyzMz+X99zJYnoPwDx+ekeWpTzELcFDTEDifIlFOYnWnbaeUAzBbQ5kYoAGbtaOF7Wl3Z+wyYqH699g= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:38:16 +0300 From: "Cyrill Gorcunov" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken Cc: LKML , "Ingo Molnar" In-Reply-To: <477196DC.9000704@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071225170737.GA3887@cvg.org> <477196DC.9000704@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Dec 26, 2007 2:48 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that > > checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example, > > run it over edd.c showed only one warning: > > > > BTW, is there someone who is already involved in a such > > cleanup to eliminate double effort? > > > > BTW, it's more than a wee bit rude of you to Cc: a bunch of people but > not the listed maintainer of the piece of code you're claiming to be > cleaning up. > > -hpa > It's a quite true, sorry for this and thanks for the note. And Peter, the line I marked is not to be splitted even having additional spaces over math operators. Look orig: mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1); new (could be): mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1); Is a new version that bad? Anyway, as only I've something really done, i'll send it to the list so you/mainteiner could choose which version is to be in kernel ;)