From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760515AbcINSyW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:54:22 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:57334 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753804AbcINSyU (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:54:20 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: borntraeger@de.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Minimize checkpatch induced patches... To: Greg KH References: <1473876366.32273.40.camel@perches.com> <554bcd26-f513-adf1-1a01-8b0ca9ff4aed@de.ibm.com> <20160914183354.GA21814@kroah.com> Cc: Joe Perches , Andrew Morton , Andy Whitcroft , Jonathan Corbet , Josh Triplett , "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:54:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160914183354.GA21814@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16091418-0028-0000-0000-00000215C8F5 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16091418-0029-0000-0000-000020519C79 Message-Id: <17f24fb7-6f69-63dd-d253-865509467717@de.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-09-14_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609020000 definitions=main-1609140252 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/14/2016 08:33 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 08:16:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> On 09/14/2016 08:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 19:56 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>>> This will certainly help to reduce the noise. On the other hand I remember Linus >>>> saying something along the line that he does not like the -f parameter (and he >>>> prefers to set this automatically). So while I like the approach I am not happy >>>> enough to ack right now - still looking for a better alternative :-/ >>> >>> Linus likely hasn't used checkpatch in a decade or so. >>> >>> Taste and judgment can't be scripted anyway. >>> >>> Let me know if you find an alternative. >> >> You know what. >> with some additional writing like >> "Existing code outside staging is not supposed to be "fixed" to match checkpatch. >> Please do not send checkpatch initiated patches for those files" >> near the newly created warn > > That's not true, I _WANT_ checkpatch cleanups for the portion of the > kernel I maintain. It keeps the code correct, up to date, easier to > maintain, and in doing so, we have found real bugs over time. Assuming that there are others with the same opinions that means that Joes patch is not the right solution? > So don't make a blanket statement like that please. And I'd strongly > suggest you revisit your feelings about this for code you maintain, > unless you want it to bitrot and not get any new contributions or > contributors :) Actually I am totally fine with valid checkpatch patches. (It is embarassing, but I even applied a correct bugfix from Nick Krause). On the other hand I think that there are too many checkpatch or Codingstyle induced patches that actually break code or make things worse. Any better idea is certainly welcome.