Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759542AbYCZKZj (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:25:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755342AbYCZKZc (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:25:32 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51340 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752286AbYCZKZb (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:25:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:25:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: jirislaby@gmail.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, joe@perches.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only Message-ID: <20080326102514.GB17176@elte.hu> References: <20080325084457.GA32103@elte.hu> <20080325.024204.175042056.davem@davemloft.net> <20080325131708.GB9612@elte.hu> <20080325.160916.182495221.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080325.160916.182495221.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1421 Lines: 37 * David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:17:08 +0100 > > > There can be fluctuations and artifacts, and obviously this is just > > another (arbitrary) static metric that has no forced relationship with > > real code quality - but in my experience it's surprisingly close to > > reality - closer than any other code metric i've seen. > > And yet you used it to claim that the sparc64 port is an > unmaintainable pile of poo. i did not claim that at all, the checkpatch average of sparc64 is pretty good: errors lines of code errors/KLOC arch/sparc64/ 1457 49785 29.2 Sparc64 is one of the cleanest architectures, in terms of average checkpatch.pl code-quality. the list i generated is the '20 worst files' (out of 90 sparc64 files) those are the files in need of cleanups (according to that metric) - and a quick manual glance confirmed that impression. Or is it your position that every single file in sparc64 is squeaky clean and that each of the 1457 cleanliness problems that checkpatch.pl reported there is bogus? Ingo -- 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/