From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755233Ab1DYGci (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 02:32:38 -0400 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:4954 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751992Ab1DYGci (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 02:32:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use From: Joe Perches To: Graeme Russ Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton , LKML , U-Boot Users In-Reply-To: <4DB51333.7060809@gmail.com> References: <4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com> <1303711340.1745.30.camel@Joe-Laptop> <4DB51333.7060809@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:32:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1303713156.1745.38.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 16:22 +1000, Graeme Russ wrote: > I like this - And checkpatch.pl could set the default options for 'Linux > flavour' so Linux would not need a .conf file :) > > BUT - The question still remains - Will patches for obviously non-Linux > related 'features' of checkpatch be welcomed and incorporated into checkpatch? I don't see a problem with it, I'd ack patches if the design and implementation is reasonably clean, but it's not really for me to decide. Another possibility is to keep all the uboot specific stuff in a separate .pl file and let that file be executed by checkpatch. Modularity and such is good. Andy Whitcroft is the nominal maintainer, but he hasn't been particularly active with checkpatch for awhile as his real job seems to keep him busy. Andrew Morton has been overseeing most of the trivial style maintenance patches to checkpatch for the last year or so. cheers, Joe