On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:18 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:27:07 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to > > > > > do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective' > > > > > switch or otherwise mark it clearly as suggestion-only? > > > > > > > > > > The coding-style as in Linus' master says about *NEW* uses of the > > > > > words > > > > > listed (those introductions I expect to be actually rare) and not > > > > > about > > > > > existing use in the code or industry. Making a noise about all uses > > > > > found surely will generate a lot more irrelevant patches. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg51849.html > > > > > > > > And if not reverted, perhaps do not check existing files > > > > at all but only check patches and change the message to > > > > show only suggestions not from a specification. > > > > > > Agreed for this case. However, excluding existing file check doesn't > > > fully > > > avoid this problem. Also, more terms having different deprecation rules > > > might > > > be added in future. How about allowing file check but show reference in > > > the > > > suggestion message as below? > > > > The general problem is that drivers/staging, net/ and drivers/net > > all have --strict on by default. > > > > Emitting these deprecated terms messages with -f --file uses for > > files in those directories isn't a great idea. > > Thank you for kindly explaining your concenrs in detail. However, I think > it's > ok to do this check even without '--strict' for files if we explicitly says > it's suggestion only, as Michal said. My patch does so. > > > > diff --git a/scripts/deprecated_terms.txt b/scripts/deprecated_terms.txt > > [] > > > @@ -3,8 +3,10 @@ > > > # The format of each line is: > > > # deprecated||suggested > > > # > > > +# If special rules are applied on the terms, please comment those. > > > > Disagree. Comments about these existing uses aren't helpful. > > Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Why do you think it's not helpful? > If 'checkpatch' finds the deprecated terms, it will ask people to read this > file, which explains special rules for each of the deprecations if exists. > The > rule is, in the case of 'slave', 'applies to new uses only'. Therefore, > people > could stop sending the noisy unnecessary patches to the maintainers.
Because it will describe this for _every_ instance of any deprecated word in the file.
