lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: checkpatch induced patches...
Date
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >> I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to
>> >> make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside
>> >> of drivers/staging.
>> >>
>> >> o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file
>> >> option for drivers/staging/
>> >> o Add an undocumented --force command line option
>> >
>> > Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a
>> > warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok.
>> >
>> >> o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging
>> >
>> > Ack.
>>
>> FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic.
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415
>
> Yeah, I remember.
>
> It's always a pleasure to chat with Borislav.
>
> This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion
> in that thread.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427
>
> I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable
> to Pavel and Kalle.

I don't mind if I have to add --force to my scripts as long as
checkpatch works similarly as before.

--
Kalle Valo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-12 18:01    [W:2.069 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site