On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:17 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > - Fixing the entire file we touch helps makes things better overall even > > though its painful in the short run. > > - Having a tool that produces accurate style recommendations is very > > important— it's hard to know what to fix and what not to fix if the tool > > doesn't give accurate messages. > > I don't know how long it will take, but these two things converging is > the keep to ending the pain permanently: Fixing non-compliant files and > improving the tools. > > I think we should at least wait a little while. If it takes too long > and does not converge to a reasonable solution in the near future, we > can revisit this.
Ok, let's wait for sometime to see the result. Since the workflow isn't lockdown yet, but the precheck is running for each PR now, I would suggest that PR must pass the precheck before merging to ensure the basic quality. > > > - Making the tool only look at the differences seems complicated and not > > what we want in the long run. > > nxstyle does already support this option: > > $ tools/nxstyle.exe -h > nxstyle version 0.01 > > Usage: nxstyle [-m <excess>] [-v <level>] [-r <start,count>] <filename> > nxstyle -h this help > nxstyle -v <level> where level is > 0 - no output > 1 - PASS/FAIL > 2 - output each line (default) > > The -r option specifies a range of line numbers to test. > > So it is not complicated for nxstyle (CI logic would need some > extension, however). The real question is whether we should do that > rather than if it is difficult to do. > CI logic is also ready now, we just need pass -r to checkpatch.sh which will generate the list of start/count for nxstyle to just cover the modified lines. > >
