[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1609200844540.3346@hadrien>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:46:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next (was
Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adjust the position of a jump label in
rbd_header_from_disk())
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for
> > > > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well,
> > > > the list has grown way too large and could use massive trimming.
> > >
> > > I'm in complete agreement.
> > >
> > > I also think that checkpatch's ERROR/WARNING/CHECK message naming is
> > > far too severe and injunctive and could use a renaming to something
> > > more silly, bug related and less commanding like FLEAS/GNATS/NITS.
> > I think it is better to be clear. CHECK was never really clear to me,
> > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have
> > ERROR or WARNING. NITS is a common word in this context, but not FLEAS
> > and GNATS, as far as I know.
> > There could also be a severity level: high medium and low
>
> I agree clarity is good.
>
> The seriousness with which some beginners take these message
> types though is troublesome,
It's not necessarily the case that changing the error type will change the
behavior of the persons in question.
> Maybe prefix various different types of style messages.
>
> Something like:
>
> ERROR -> CODE_STYLE_DEFECT
> WARNING -> CODE_STYLE_UNPREFERRED
> CHECK -> CODE_STYLE_NIT
>
> I doubt additional external documentation would help much.
>
> Some checkpatch bleats really are errors though.
Maybe just downgrade more things?
Perhaps SUGGESTION would be more clear than CHECK?
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists