[PATCH stable] Separate multicast configuration for mesh and wlan interfaces.
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Wed May 14 05:16:18 EDT 2008
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."
>> 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.
More information about the Devel