Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [PATCH] checkpatch: Add comment about updating Documentation/CodingStyle

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

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>