On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:35 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
On 4/14/21 9:29 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:17 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
Perhaps (like the -W options for GCC) there could be a way to specify in a Makefile which checkpatch messages are reported/not reported? I don't claim that's a good suggestion, but if I could optionally indicate somewhere that "two consecutive blank lines is OK for Greybus" (one example that comes to mind) I might do so.
checkpatch already has --ignore=<list> and --types=<list> for the various classes of messages it emits.
see: $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --list-types --verbose
Dwaipayan Ray (cc'd) is supposedly working on expanding the verbose descriptions of each type.
That's awesome, I wasn't aware of that.
Any suggestions on a standardized way to say "in this subtree, please provide these arguments to checkpatch.pl"?
I can probably stick it in a README file or something, but is there an existing best practice?
There is no standardized mechanism for this checkpatch use.
Putting something in a staging README is in general a good way for it to _not_ be read by people doing 'my first kernel patch'.
I still think emitting a message for overly long identifiers could be a decent checkpatch test.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1518801207.13169.15.camel@perches.com/