I've been killing off a *lot* of checkpatch warnings, and I'm probably getting a tad overzealous.  I'll drop these from the patch series next time I rebase, and avoid doing this in the future.  Thanks for the input.

Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings?  Most of what remains are "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well, or am I safe to leave these?  I ask because these changes will be huge, and are unlikely to improve readability (but I don't know where the kernel community stands on having billions of typedefs everywhere.

--
Mike Shuey

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
> Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
[]
> @@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_console_error(int rc, lnet_nid_t peer_nid,
>       switch (rc) {
>       /* "normal" errors */
>       case -ECONNREFUSED:
> -             CNETERR("Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> -                     libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid),
> -                     &peer_ip, peer_port);
> +             CNETERR(
> +                     "Connection to %s at host %pI4h on port %d was refused: check that Lustre is running on that node.\n",
> +                     libcfs_nid2str(peer_nid), &peer_ip, peer_port);

These are not improvements and checkpatch messages aren't dicta.

Please don't convert code unless the conversion makes it better
for a human reader.

These don't.