[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <928f615f2a25f821e785f2db96f90df009d2fa34.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:46 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Slawomir Stepien <sst@...zta.fm>,
Gabriel Capella <gabriel@...ella.pro>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-usp@...glegroups.com,
apw@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: adc: Add comments to prevent checks
corrections
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 20:06 +0200, Slawomir Stepien wrote:
> On paź 15, 2018 18:25, Gabriel Capella wrote:
> > This patch adds 3 comments in 2 different files.
> > These comments warn to don't correct the checks of type:
> > "CHECK: spaces preferred around that '-'"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Capella <gabriel@...ella.pro>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7192.c | 1 +
> > drivers/staging/iio/adc/ad7280a.c | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> I have this simpler solution...let's focus our efforts on moving the two drivers
> out of staging. This will prevent the CHK to appear:
>
> Cut from checkpatch.pl:
>
> if ($realfile =~ m@^(?:drivers/net/|net/|drivers/staging/)@) {
> $check = 1;
>
> Existing driver out of staging, with this "problem":
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --types SPACING --file drivers/iio/adc/ad7793.c
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 827 lines checked
>
> drivers/iio/adc/ad7793.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
>
> NOTE: Used message types: SPACING
>
> In my opinion it would stop this incorrect patches. -
>
> I have also this changes to checkpatch.pl:
> https://github.com/s-stepien/linux-1/commit/c976a31b392393fb417f2d9e2ec9639bc226ad0b
> and usage:
> https://github.com/s-stepien/linux-1/commit/1adc0428b496f44f6a931637084bb619ddd9992d
> but I'm not that sure it is the best way to go.
>
> What do you all think?
I think the suggested form is somewhat cryptic
/* checkpatch-<foo> */
and the new checkpatch code is somewhat balky.
It also allows only a single type to ignore per line.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists