Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:43:00AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: Maybe some help/warning text like: --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/... Do not use this option merely to create potential patches that are uncompiled or untested. Everyone compiles their patches hopefully? The problem is with patches that aren't really a cleanup but are just done to make checkpatch happy. I guess documenting --force is better than not documenting. can i make a suggestion? 1) we can have some sort of symbol in the MAINTAINER file to show if that maintainer wants style correction patch or not. a) if the maintainer doesnot want to receive such patches then checkpatch will only check that patch if that patch is part of a series, and there should be an extra option in checkpatch so that the user can inform checkpatch that it is a part of a series which is doing more than just style cleanups. b) And if the maintainer welcomes style check patches then checkpatch can check the patch without any extra option and -f can also be enabld for those files which are maintained by that particular maintainer. 2) is it not possible for checkpatch to check if the patch is already applied to the file or not? if the patch is applied and the timestamp of the .o file is older than the file in question then that will usually mean the user has not compiled the patch. my perl skills are excellent so i am not sure these are practical suggestions or not .. :) regards sudip regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
Joe Perches j...@perches.com writes: On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside of drivers/staging. o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file option for drivers/staging/ o Add an undocumented --force command line option Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging Ack. FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415 Yeah, I remember. It's always a pleasure to chat with Borislav. This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion in that thread. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427 I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable to Pavel and Kalle. I don't mind if I have to add --force to my scripts as long as checkpatch works similarly as before. -- Kalle Valo ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside of drivers/staging. o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file option for drivers/staging/ o Add an undocumented --force command line option Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging Ack. regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside of drivers/staging. o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file option for drivers/staging/ o Add an undocumented --force command line option Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging Ack. FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415 Yeah, I remember. It's always a pleasure to chat with Borislav. This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion in that thread. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427 I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable to Pavel and Kalle. ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside of drivers/staging. o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file option for drivers/staging/ o Add an undocumented --force command line option Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging Ack. FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415 -- Thanks, //richard ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Wed 2015-02-11 12:20:25, Joe Perches wrote: On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside of drivers/staging. o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file option for drivers/staging/ o Add an undocumented --force command line option Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging Ack. FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415 Yeah, I remember. It's always a pleasure to chat with Borislav. This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion in that thread. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427 I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable to Pavel and Kalle. Undocumented options are evil... You can add warning about not wasting people's time in --force documentation... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:24 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: On Wed 2015-02-11 12:20:25, Joe Perches wrote: On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside of drivers/staging. o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file option for drivers/staging/ o Add an undocumented --force command line option Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging [] FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415 [] This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion in that thread. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427 I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable to Pavel and Kalle. Undocumented options are evil... You can add warning about not wasting people's time in --force documentation... Yeah, I had added --force to the help text then removed it before sending, so I suppose adding a warning there is OK too. Nobody reads the --help text anyway. Dan/Andrew/Greg? You got a preference? Maybe some help/warning text like: --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/... Do not use this option merely to create potential patches that are uncompiled or untested. ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 01:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: Maybe some help/warning text like: --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/... Do not use this option merely to create potential patches that are uncompiled or untested. Everyone compiles their patches hopefully? Maybe they're simply hopeful their patches compile. Many checkpatch users seem unaware their patches need to compile though. ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
Am 11.02.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Dan Carpenter: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: Maybe some help/warning text like: --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/... Do not use this option merely to create potential patches that are uncompiled or untested. Everyone compiles their patches hopefully? The problem is with patches that aren't really a cleanup but are just done to make checkpatch happy. I guess documenting --force is better than not documenting. Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is better than nothing. -- Dick Brandon Thanks, //richard ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: checkpatch induced patches...
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: Maybe some help/warning text like: --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/... Do not use this option merely to create potential patches that are uncompiled or untested. Everyone compiles their patches hopefully? The problem is with patches that aren't really a cleanup but are just done to make checkpatch happy. I guess documenting --force is better than not documenting. regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
