lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: checkkpatch (in)sanity ?
    On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:15:57AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
    > On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 22:47 -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote:
    > > > > By default you should only get the most critical warnings we have in the
    > > > > kernel like missing S-O-B or corrupt patch.
    > > > I don't think so, but if you do, add a filter for ERROR only.
    > > I could, but the problem is the people who see the default output as "holy".
    >
    > Personally, I think the "my first kernel patch" beginners were
    > overly encouraged to produce these checkpatch whitespace type
    > changes by a couple things:
    >
    > o Greg KH's TuxRadar article back in 2010
    > http://www.tuxradar.com/content/newbies-guide-hacking-linux-kernel
    > o The Eudyptula Challenge
    >  http://eudyptula-challenge.org/
    >
    > I don't know if the Eudyptula scripts are specific to
    > drivers/staging and most of those beginners haven't read his
    > email from 2015 that essentially says "don't do that" on
    > anything other than drivers/staging.

    I have been assured that Eudyptula says to stick only with
    drivers/staging/ If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know and I
    will work to resolve that.

    thanks,

    greg k-h

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:4.097 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site