On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:05:09PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 16:54 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:56:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 09/14/2016 07:51 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > checkpatch can be a useful tool for patches. > > > > > > > > It can be a much more controversial tool when used on files with the > > > > -f option for style and whitespace changes for code that is relatively > > > > stable, obsolete, or for maintained by specific individuals. > [] > > > This will certainly help to reduce the noise. On the other hand I > > > remember Linus > > > saying something along the line that he does not like the -f parameter > > > (and he > > > prefers to set this automatically). So while I like the approach I am not > > > happy > > > enough to ack right now - still looking for a better alternative :-/ > > > This seems entirely compatible with autodetection. If checkpatch > > detects that it runs on a file rather than a patch, it can assume -f. > > It can then apply this same logic to reject that if 1) in a kernel tree > > and 2) running on a non-staging file and 3) not passed --force. > > checkpatch doesn't do autodetection and there's no real > need for it to do it either. The reason is in the name.
I'm not suggesting that checkpatch *needs* to do autodetection, just pointing out this this proposed change doesn't preclude any future autodetection.
