Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [PATCH] checkpatch: Add comment about updating Documentation/CodingStyle | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:52:45 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 18:34 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > I'd suggest a couple more, which > *should* always make sense, and to the best of my knowledge don't tend > to generate false positives: > > C99_COMMENTS
I don't have a problem with c99 comments. As far as I know, Linus doesn't either.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/16/473
> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL > CVS_KEYWORD
OK, but <shrug>
> ELSE_AFTER_BRACE
I wouldn't do this one. I think there are some false positives here.
> GLOBAL_INITIALIZERS > INITIALISED_STATIC
Nor these.
> INVALID_UTF8 > LINUX_VERSION_CODE > MISSING_EOF_NEWLINE
OK I suppose.
> PREFER_SEQ_PUTS > PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL
There are a lot of these. I suggest no here.
> RETURN_PARENTHESES > SIZEOF_PARENTHESIS
It's in coding style, but some newish patches do avoid them. It's a question about how noisy you want your robot to be.
> SPACE_BEFORE_TAB > TRAILING_SEMICOLON > TRAILING_WHITESPACE > USE_DEVICE_INITCALL
> USE_RELATIVE_PATH
Having checkpatch tell people how to write changelogs I think not a great idea.
> These *ought* to make sense, but I don't know their false positive rates: > > HEXADECIMAL_BOOLEAN_TEST
That's a good one. 0 false positives.
> ALLOC_ARRAY_ARGS
Yes, this would be reasonable too.
> CONSIDER_KSTRTO
I think orobably not. This would be a cleanup thing.
> CONST_STRUCT
OK
> SPLIT_STRING
I suggest no but <shrug>
| |