Re: checkpatch on Kconfig files

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

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.