Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: checkpatch on Kconfig files | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:18:16 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 14:36 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andi, > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:21:21 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > I believe that was Andi Kleen's pet peeve, > > > so I'll punt it back to him. > > > > This was always in checkpatch. If you touch/move some existing > > code it blames you for the issues that were already there. > > > > Not specific to this check. > > Actually it is. I was not moving the Kconfig entry, and I was not > touching its help text either. Here checkpatch complained about > something which was in the context of the patch, not in added or > modified lines. I am not aware of any other check doing that, > thankfully.
I think there's one other --strict test for alignment that uses context lines to bleat a message
change something like:
- printk(KERN_WARNING "long line %d\n", length); to + pr_warn("long line %d\n", length);
changing just the printk -> pr_warn line but not the length line below it and checkpatch will bleat a "bad alignment" message.
> This is a false positive, and checkpatch explicitly asks for these to > be reported. Which is what I'm doing. Better tools make future > contributions better and easier.
Another option would be to change the message when it's in context lines and not in added lines to something other than a demand for help text.
Or make it a --strict only CHK message when it's in context and not added as part of the submission.
| |