[PATCH stable] Separate multicast configuration for mesh and wlan interfaces.

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 19:12 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Can we come to a consensus for the sake of outside contributors?
> Rather than telling the cozybit folks one thing, and having checkpatch.pl
> and CodingStyle claim another (Dave, surely you wouldn't argue against
> using checkpatch?), can we get our stories straight?  Please?

Checkpatch is a useful tool but I use it with the line length check
patched out, and I take the rest of its output with a pinch of salt.

As for getting our stories straight... let's defer to Linus, who at
various times has said the following:

>> Quite frankly, I've several times been *this* close (holds up fingers so 
>> you can't even see between them) to just remove checkpatch entirely.
>>
>> I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are 
>> anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines (where the 
>> "fixed" version is usually worse than the original), but it's been true 
>> for some other warnings too."
 -- http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/21/334


>> Quite frankly, I personally am considering removing "checkpatch.pl".
>> That thing is just a nazi dream. That hard-coded 80-character limit
>> etc is just bad taste. 
>> 
>> Dammit, code cleanliness is not about "automated and mindless slavish 
>> following of rules". A process that is too inflexible is a *bad* process. 
>> I'd much rather have a few 80+ character lines than stupid and unreadable 
>> line wrapping just because the line hit 87 characters in length.
>> 
>> I don't have 25 lines on a screen either. 
 -- http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/23/189

-- 
dwmw2