On Tue 2014-07-22 08:27:22, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Borislav Petkov writes:
>
> > No, checkpatch should only check patches and not whole file. It is
> > wrong. Fullstop.
>
> Please don't remove --file, I use it all the time when maintaining
> ath6kl and ath10k. It's a lot easier in my workflow to
On Tue 2014-07-22 08:27:22, Kalle Valo wrote:
Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de writes:
No, checkpatch should only check patches and not whole file. It is
wrong. Fullstop.
Please don't remove --file, I use it all the time when maintaining
ath6kl and ath10k. It's a lot easier in my workflow
Borislav Petkov writes:
> No, checkpatch should only check patches and not whole file. It is
> wrong. Fullstop.
Please don't remove --file, I use it all the time when maintaining
ath6kl and ath10k. It's a lot easier in my workflow to test the whole
driver in one go than start testing individual
Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de writes:
No, checkpatch should only check patches and not whole file. It is
wrong. Fullstop.
Please don't remove --file, I use it all the time when maintaining
ath6kl and ath10k. It's a lot easier in my workflow to test the whole
driver in one go than start
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:57:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> I think your viewpoint is a bit tainted as you're the
> same guy that wrote "fuck readability".
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/19/116
It seems you still haven't understood what I actually meant.
If you'd tried to understand what
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:49 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:35:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Using the one-liner above also makes it harder to
> > automate checkpatch neatening and avoid using Lindent:
>
> automated checkpatch?? More idiocy... we want less, in case
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:43:57AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Thinking about it, Linux itself can be abused as well. We should
> take it away to prevent that abuse from happening.
Whatever floats your boat, dude.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:35:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Using the one-liner above also makes it harder to
> automate checkpatch neatening and avoid using Lindent:
automated checkpatch?? More idiocy... we want less, in case you've
forgotten.
Let me state it again:
The thing is called
On 07/18/2014 07:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:21:14AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Or he could just use the existing -f flag.
If you mean the -f flag to checkpatch, he's removing them both.
Two different 'he'.
I really don't understand why you're trying to
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:24 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:17:42PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > --file is a in my opinion useful option and at least I use it on a
> > regular basis.
[]
> diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
Using the one-liner
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:21:14AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Or he could just use the existing -f flag.
If you mean the -f flag to checkpatch, he's removing them both.
> I really don't understand why you're trying to educate people by
> taking their toy away. They'll find another one in
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:17:42PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> --file is a in my opinion useful option and at least I use it on a
> regular basis.
Use
diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 06:56:12AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Yes, that came up before. Or I can revert the patch locally, or keep
> an old version of checkpatch around. You make me suffer
Come on, you suffer from a one-liner?! Script it or whatever. Puh-lease!
The thing is inviting lazy
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> As capable kernel hacker you can still use a command like:
> diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
Or he could just use the existing -f flag. I really don't understand
why you're trying to educate people by
On 07/17/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
[...]
In order to deal with that bad habit let's remove the --file option
and bring checkpatch.pl back to its original purpose.
I don't think this is a good solution the problem and I'm not sure how
successful it will actually be at fixing the
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 18.07.2014 15:37, schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> > On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
>
Am 18.07.2014 15:37, schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
>>> (and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that
>>> does not
On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
(and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that
does not mean all uses are objectionable.
Do you actually have a
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
> (and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that
> does not mean all uses are objectionable.
Do you actually have a valid use case for keeping the cmdline switch
On 07/17/2014 08:34 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
In order to deal with that bad habit let's remove the --file option
On 07/17/2014 08:34 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
In order to deal with that bad habit let's remove the --file option
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
(and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that
does not mean all uses are objectionable.
Do you actually have a valid use case for keeping the cmdline switch
On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
(and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that
does not mean all uses are objectionable.
Do you actually have a
Am 18.07.2014 15:37, schrieb Guenter Roeck:
On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
(and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that
does not mean all
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 18.07.2014 15:37, schrieb Guenter Roeck:
On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you
(and
On 07/17/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
[...]
In order to deal with that bad habit let's remove the --file option
and bring checkpatch.pl back to its original purpose.
I don't think this is a good solution the problem and I'm not sure how
successful it will actually be at fixing the
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
As capable kernel hacker you can still use a command like:
diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
Or he could just use the existing -f flag. I really don't understand
why you're trying to educate people by
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 06:56:12AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Yes, that came up before. Or I can revert the patch locally, or keep
an old version of checkpatch around. You make me suffer
Come on, you suffer from a one-liner?! Script it or whatever. Puh-lease!
The thing is inviting lazy
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:17:42PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
--file is a in my opinion useful option and at least I use it on a
regular basis.
Use
diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:21:14AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Or he could just use the existing -f flag.
If you mean the -f flag to checkpatch, he's removing them both.
I really don't understand why you're trying to educate people by
taking their toy away. They'll find another one in no
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:24 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:17:42PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
--file is a in my opinion useful option and at least I use it on a
regular basis.
[]
diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
Using the one-liner above
On 07/18/2014 07:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:21:14AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Or he could just use the existing -f flag.
If you mean the -f flag to checkpatch, he's removing them both.
Two different 'he'.
I really don't understand why you're trying to
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:35:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Using the one-liner above also makes it harder to
automate checkpatch neatening and avoid using Lindent:
automated checkpatch?? More idiocy... we want less, in case you've
forgotten.
snip more pointless justification attempts
Let me
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:43:57AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Thinking about it, Linux itself can be abused as well. We should
take it away to prevent that abuse from happening.
Whatever floats your boat, dude.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:49 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:35:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Using the one-liner above also makes it harder to
automate checkpatch neatening and avoid using Lindent:
automated checkpatch?? More idiocy... we want less, in case you've
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:57:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
I think your viewpoint is a bit tainted as you're the
same guy that wrote fuck readability.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/19/116
It seems you still haven't understood what I actually meant.
If you'd tried to understand what I mean
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 17:34 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
>
> grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
>
> > Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
> >
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 18:02 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:51:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
[]
> checkpatch should only check patches and not whole file.
> It is wrong. Fullstop.
No worries, we just disagree about the
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:51:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
And still, we don't want to encourage people with useless cleanups.
> I think it should really only be used in --file mode
> on drivers/staging/.
Also dumb idea - having to look at a
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 17:34 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
> Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
> style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
> In
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:34:28PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
> Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
> style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
> In order to deal with that bad habit let's
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
In order to deal with that bad habit let's remove the --file option
and bring checkpatch.pl back to its original
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
In order to deal with that bad habit let's remove the --file option
and bring checkpatch.pl back to its original
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:34:28PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
In order to deal with that bad habit let's
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 17:34 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style cleanups for source files within the kernel.
In order
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:51:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
And still, we don't want to encourage people with useless cleanups.
I think it should really only be used in --file mode
on drivers/staging/.
Also dumb idea - having to look at a single
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 18:02 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:51:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
[]
checkpatch should only check patches and not whole file.
It is wrong. Fullstop.
eh No worries, we just disagree about the
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 17:34 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
checkpatch.pl is a nice tool to find issues in patches.
grep is a similar tool, just less automated.
Sadly this tool gets more and more abused by various people to create
style
48 matches
Mail list logo
