Re: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups

From: Andy Whitcroft
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 04:54:16 EST

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > can we please add this to ?
> >
> > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock);
> That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone
> runs the thing.
> I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors
> the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;)

That shouldn't be too hard. checkpatch has been subscribed since birth
but short circuiting the replies to me only.

I guess the main question is whether to reply-all or reply just to the
sender when commenting on patches. Perhaps for the sanity of the rest
of the world, just the sender makes most sense.

> (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too.
> You wouldn't _believe_...)

It should pick up both of these, the word-wrapping is already there as
we detect lines within patch segments which don't start '[ +-]', the
tab-expanded should be picked up as every line would be "don't use
spaces use tabs for indent".


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at