Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 14:02 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > I don't think anyone really has an issue with things like max_mV.
> > And whilst nS et al. may not be SI standard, at least it's clear
> > what they represent.
> []
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -2940,6 +2940,7 @@ sub process {
> > if ($var !~ /$Constant/ &&
> > $var =~ /[A-Z]\w*[a-z]|[a-z]\w*[A-Z]/ &&
> > $var !~
/"^(?:Clear|Set|TestClear|TestSet|)Page[A-Z]/ &&
> > + $var !~ /^[a-z_]*_[numk][VAS]$/ &&
> > !defined $camelcase{$var}) {
> > $camelcase{$var} = 1;
> > WARN("CAMELCASE",
>
> Hi Phil.
>
> CamelCase was downgraded to a --strict only (CHK)
> test in -next recently. commit f0e8102413
> ("checkpatch: change CamelCase test and make it --strict")
>
> I'm hesitant to add a longish whitelist inside
> checkpatch itself, but if it's added, it should
> probably be an array.
Thanks for the response, Joe, sorry I didn't reply earlier.
I agree that a creeping list of exceptions where CamelCase
is to be overlooked would be bad, but I would argue that
perhaps my exceptions aren't actual CamelCase - they're
(pretending to be) SI units, and just happen to match the
CamelCase regexp. I did a grep for my regexp, and everything
I noticed in a quick scan did look like a justifiable
variable name.
Of course, it's not a biggie either way, and of course it's
your call, but I do feel my patch has enough merit to be
worth defending.
Cheers,
Phil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
