A quick guide to why stand-alone checkpatch patches suck...

[nick]

On 14-09-17 07:56 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> 
> 
> On September 17, 2014 7:20:42 AM EDT, "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>  and, as we've all seen, nick's other flaw is that, quite simply,
>> he's selfish and greedy. his entire obsession is with the output of
>> checkpatch, which means he wants to grab all the trivial cleanup (the
>> low-hanging fruit, as it were) for himself, and not leave any for
>> others. rather than take the time to understand the code, nick wants
>> checkpatch to do all the work for him. in the end, nick doesn't want
>> to do any work or understand how the kernel actually works -- he just
>> wants patches, and he wants them as quickly and cheaply as possible.
> 
> Nick and his patches may have plenty of flaws, but I think it is a bit crazy to call his effort to get his first patch into the kernel greedy.
> 
>>From what little I know he originally started trying to make functional code changes around various fixme's in the code.  Not surprisingly, that took more overall kernel knowledge than he had.  If fixme's were trivial, they would have been fixed in the first place, not a comment.
> 
> If Greg KH welcomes code style patches in the staging code as a way for newbies to learn the workflow, then that is a great thing.
> 
> Greg (not kh)
> 
Thanks Greg,
That is exactly what happened with my issues, I started on things with more then I could handle and due to that and not listening was banned. If someone with re look at  my patch and tell if it's OK or not, if it's good please sent
it off , if not I would like to known exactly where I am wrong so I can learn.
Nick