Re: checkpatch: support deprecated terms checking

[SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:33:28 +0200 "Michał Mirosław" <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:07:48PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 09:42:06 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 17:36 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > []
> > > > > I do not want to encourage relatively inexperienced people
> > > > > to run checkpatch and submit inappropriate patches.
> > > > 
> > > > Me, neither.  But, I think providing more warnings and references is better for
> > > > that.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, the inexperienced _do_ in fact run
> > > checkpatch on files and submit inappropriate patches.
> > > 
> > > It's generally a time sink for the experienced
> > > maintainers to reply.
> > > 
> > > > Simply limiting checks could allow people submitting inappropriate patches
> > > > intorducing new uses of deprecated terms.
> > > 
> > > Tradeoffs...
> > > 
> > > I expect that patches being reviewed by maintainers
> > > are preferred over files being inappropriately changed
> > > by the inexperienced.
> > > 
> > > Those inappropriate changes should not be encouraged
> > > by tools placed in the hands of the inexperienced.
> > 
> > Right, many things are tradeoff.  Seems we arrived in the point, though we
> > still have different opinions.  To summarize the pros and cons of my patch from
> > my perspective:
> > 
> > Pros 1: Handle future terms deprecated with different reasons and coverages.
> > Pros 2: Inappropriate patches are avoided if the submitters carefully read the
> > warning messages.
> > Cons: Careless people could still bother maintainers by not carefully reading
> > the message and sending inappropriate patches.
> > 
> > To me, the pros still seems larger than the cons.  I would like to also again
> > mention that the maintainer who first reported the problem, Michal, told it's
> > ok with the explicit messaging.  Nonethelss, this is just my opinion.
> > 
> > Attaching the patch addressing your comments for the previous version.  The
> > changes from the previous version are:
> > 
> >  - Make the name of reported terms not too verbose
> >  - Avoid unnecessary initialization of the reported terms hash
> >  - Warn multiple deprecated terms in same line
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Maybe you could split the meaning of --subjective and --strict, and
> enable those checks only for --subjective? The test is really hard to do
> right: you would have to consider the context and not only mere occurrence
> of a word (heh, I even wrote 'blacklisted' here, since it really is about
> a night/danger analogy and not political/ethical one).

I'm concerning if applying the switch and making this patch non-default could
reduce the check coverage.  Moreover, IMHO, the deprecation rule of the terms
that described in the 'coding-style.rst' is not so subjective but clear.  Also,
the checkpatch's warning/check message for those seems explicit enough to me.

And, the deprecated terms feature is not for this specific terms
(master/slave/blacklist/whitelist) only but general deprecated terms.  Maybe we
could add one more rule in the 'deprecated_terms.txt' by adding a comment, say,
"Please add only terms that deprecated with clear rules", for avoiding
introduce of subjective deprecated terms in future, though.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

> 
> Best Regards,
> Michał Mirosław