From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760692AbaCUPS2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:18:28 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0183.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.183]:36591 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760279AbaCUPST (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:18:19 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2691:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4250:4321:4605:5007:6119:7652:10004:10400:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12295:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13095:13149:13230:13311:13357:21060,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: pies39_e2d1727c170d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2414 Message-ID: <1395415096.7776.90.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: checkpatch on Kconfig files From: Joe Perches To: Jean Delvare Cc: Andi Kleen , Andy Whitcroft , LKML Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:18:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140321143642.404183e5@endymion.delvare> References: <20140321094239.18aebf02@endymion.delvare> <1395392257.7776.74.camel@joe-AO722> <20140321132121.GL22728@two.firstfloor.org> <20140321143642.404183e5@endymion.delvare> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.