[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171120212251.k4uvdstfhg6qtrag@ltop.local>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:22:52 +0100
From: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
To: Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Cc: Jim Davis <jim.epost@...il.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] kbuild: Add P= command line flag to run checkpatch
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:10:12PM +0100, Knut Omang wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 21:08 +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> >
> > It should be noted though that CHECKFLAGS contains very very few
> > sparse specific things. It's mainly flags for the compiler
> > coming from KBUILD_CFLAGS (which of course, sparse needs to
> > do its job properly).
>
> Yes, and we would want some arguments passed to checkpatch by default as well.
>
> A wrapper script (which by the way was what I started this with..)
> could of course solve this and other issues such as the ability
> to run multiple checkers, but I am not convinced that that would be
> less ugly?
A wrapper script is something else that need to be maintained
but of course, it's very flexible.
I don't have a strong opinion on this and prefer to let speak
the people who maintain kbuild.
Should it be possible to somehow keep the distinction between
the flags coming from KBUILD_CFLAGS and the pure CHECKFLAGS?
-- Luc Van Oostenryck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists