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

[nick]

On 14-09-17 08:00 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, 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.
> 
>   i was actually referring to nick's more recent posting where he
> vowed to use his patch as the template to start cleaning up all of
> drivers/staging/. i thought i was fairly clear that there is nothing
> wrong with *starting* with stylistic cleanup, but nick made it quite
> clear he planned on doing this all over drivers/staging. *that* is
> what i was referring to.
> 
> rday
> 
Rday,
Your reading that wrong what I mean is to use the format as a template for patches I am going to send out,
not clean up drivers/staging all of it a least. I was stating I wanted to only clean up a bit there in order
to get comfortable with sending out patches. 
Sorry about the miswritten message,
Nick