From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E791CC433E0 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22ED22252 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726737AbhAYCS0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jan 2021 21:18:26 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0091.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.91]:50150 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727022AbhAYCBn (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jan 2021 21:01:43 -0500 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A9F1801EE95 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A08180A8135; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 01:59:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: fish12_580090327581 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2092 Received: from [192.168.1.159] (unknown [47.151.137.21]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 01:59:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53c071a4fc34b1bf5a655cc468837b4fbe6f6787.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: Anyone have ideas for checkpatch improvements ? From: Joe Perches To: LKML Cc: Dwaipayan Ray , Lukas Bulwahn , Andy Whitcroft Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 17:59:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: <08ee32211e8b40234257a236c842a7be6703144c.camel@perches.com> References: <08ee32211e8b40234257a236c842a7be6703144c.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org One of the linux-mentees, Dwaipayan Ray, asked me in a private email for ideas for improvements to checkpatch. Though I am not his nominal mentor, my response to him was the below. Does anyone have any more ideas for checkpatch improvements or enhancements? --- On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 21:02 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > I am actually writing to you > regarding any possible ideas for checkpatch or any improvements > you would like to see moving forward with checkpatch. > > The last time you had suggested about --fix options. But as we saw > that maybe some places are better off with it. So do you have > anything particular in mind? > > Again, thanks a lot in advance. Since my mentorship will go on till > about march, I am indeed in dire need of ideas. You could: o Separate the various tests into individual modules that are aggregated at startup. o Create a test suite. o Externally document the thing with use cases, all the named tests are not particularly documented. o Add --verbose test descriptions, so 'why this message is emitted' description is optionally available to / understood by the user. o Add support for various brace location / required spacing styles.