Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755429AbbEVDGL (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 23:06:11 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0075.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.75]:45967 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754061AbbEVDGI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 23:06:08 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:968:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2199:2393:2559:2562:2693:2828:2892:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3874:4321:5007:6261:7875:7903:8603:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: hot34_8c9559730c235 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2026 Message-ID: <1432263965.20840.85.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet: checkpatch.pl fixes From: Joe Perches To: Michael Shuey Cc: "Drokin, Oleg" , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "hpdd-discuss@lists.01.org" , lustre-deve@lists.lustre.org Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:06:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1432237849-53947-1-git-send-email-shuey@purdue.edu> <1432237849-53947-11-git-send-email-shuey@purdue.edu> <1432242004.20840.68.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 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 Content-Length: 1054 Lines: 29 On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 17:47 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote: > Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings? Most of what remains are > "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well, > or am I safe to leave these? I'm personally not a big fan of non-enum typedefs unless the typedef hides some arch or size specific information that's otherwise hard to handle. I think struct/function/native type equivalent typedefs are better removed. coccinelle is a good tool for this. I rather like enum typedefs, but that's not a common view in lk land. > I ask because these changes will be huge, and > are unlikely to improve readability (but I don't know where the kernel > community stands on having billions of typedefs everywhere. I counted slightly less than billions. I got 281. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/