Re: pull request: wireless-next 2012-05-03

["Arend van Spriel" <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/03/2012 07:29 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 13:17 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>  ...
>> -		if (hdev->discovery.type == DISCOV_TYPE_INTERLEAVED) {
>> +		if (hdev->discovery.type == DISCOV_TYPE_INTERLEAVED &&
>> +				hdev->discovery.state == DISCOVERY_FINDING) {
>>
>> Really, we went through this a million times very recently and I'm
>> not pulling anything into my tree that has garbage like this in it.
> 
> Perhaps the bluetooth folk can adopt using
> 
> scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict
> 
> or maybe checkpatch could be changed to use
> --strict on patches in net and drivers/net
> automatically.

When the --strict option was added it made me wonder if that meant we
should add this option in Documentation/SubmittingPatches. I do not see
why the patches for net subsystem should have a different check level.
So why not do --strict by default and get rid of the option flag.

Gr. AvS

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html