[Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] checkpatch/Codingstyle and trivial patch spam
Greg KH
greg at kroah.com
Wed Sep 14 14:32:05 UTC 2016
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:23:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 13:54 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:24:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 19:03 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > "Do
> > > > not mass-reformat existing code, even if it doesn't follow these
> > > > guidelines; doing so creates noise in version control history and makes
> > > > patches fail to apply."
> > > Or maybe add something like a new entry for what types of changes
> > > are acceptable with a default of "none"
> > > C: Whitespace and Style
> > Ick, no, we have way too many things in the MAINTAINERS file as it is...
>
> So what would use propose instead?
>
> I think the primary issue is people using "scripts/checkpatch.pl -f"
>
> I think that shouldn't be done without an understanding of when
> it is useful and when it is not useful to use that -f option.
I agree, people get annoyed by this. I personally think that anyone who
does get annoyed by it should just ignore them, or fix up the code to
not get triggered by the reports.
But who am I to complain :)
> I have proposed adding an undocumented --force option to checkpatch
> which would disallow -f unless --force is also used.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/11/433
>
> Does anyone object to this?
None from me.
thanks,
greg k-h
More information about the Ksummit-discuss
mailing list