Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935141AbdLRTSG (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:18:06 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51894 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934113AbdLRTSF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:18:05 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DAE2720853 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=leon@kernel.org Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:18:00 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Joe Perches Cc: Knut Omang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Doug Ledford , =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon?= Bugge , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5smund_=D8stvold?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] RDMA/core: Add runchecks.cfg for drivers/infiniband/core Message-ID: <20171218191800.GE18894@mtr-leonro.local> References: <0ce3c307255b22d23f49d13213b76044647e6f60.1513430008.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com> <20171218080223.GB18894@mtr-leonro.local> <1513600586.22938.29.camel@oracle.com> <1513623831.31581.121.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1513623831.31581.121.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2021 Lines: 54 --jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:03:51AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 13:36 +0100, Knut Omang wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 10:02 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > [] > > > Also, I agree with other reviewers, there is no excuse for adding > > > checkpatch specifics per-subsystem/folder, the differences are better > > > to be treated in checkpatch.pl itself. > > What other reviewers are those? I saw responses from Stephen and Jason. > > As a checkpatch maintainer, I don't believe it's appropriate > to add many per-subsystem specific rules to checkpatch. There are not so much differences, I'm aware of only one specific subsystem - netdev. The rest of the kernel more or less follows general CodingStyle and don't need anything specific in checkpatch.pl Thanks > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html --jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEkhr/r4Op1/04yqaB5GN7iDZyWKcFAlo4FGgACgkQ5GN7iDZy WKcBghAAtnSNtIdtvbepyI737KATgaqRyqY7E4q1qiaJHtGQgrVEYmyUI9eTFvEJ 8Pf9886jYvDPj2nRwhByS7jLPbuzubM2OIrjBaQ57NgXXdlP/lt04ZFAsxaewkEz LYlbHJ6FHszQFtgmdsjH0jXJe/t+tlNqvAfUWEv3kGyy6O01ToIa/D3lGE9FKPWC 5G6QPhYjNb8KEF1iOIj1GhpVhhvTLKR6Y+zdRsBi0tFhFbLOdZ/UPGWEXPpQotIl MZMlaTXdBgYh4NRixJMjYjgRYrH6QmWUi8RIyU0Y/bFT3ZUUy0KYbV5OjHFpOFS5 tFZ30VGsUGKuTxilv0VK/ukHsqH2jfFqbGGlVCaG0kRYF1XzlliVPKhHe/sLSUa0 f14qiJTe6eFbIGAXs3YakgpseTzgL0k7/6fvMHkNwxTdM/Hzl1Y2+32JvWoPVgmW 08XYe15y/utXKA6NSNe7ogl5LCWXqy2uFdVwO/ODo9Id7N6DaYFfihsDmjGI3q2L QiHNpkGFW5m7NR31FVExTyZKbh8yFJTLOsoR0el61L48fKU23kK8Jvgjd6Tl8jcA 1Ab7aEol8nJet2IPqgc1rajpkQwiW39njv2RfMMtclViKOigqfD/dGCraH2seP4j mLtujkiw0ZUzx1drEcuNzRbqOllpvvgzrPueAvkazDBLbwaOLLQ= =uDKz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl--