[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c11f284872f3b2b017d9d27d4075582c1a40eab.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 08:33:46 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
dwaipayanray1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: fix false positives in REPEATED_WORD
warning
On Sat, 2020-10-24 at 18:54 +0530, Aditya wrote:
> > Would you like to work on
> > further rules that can be improved with your evaluation approach?
>
> Yes, I would like work on further rules.
Some generic ideas:
How about working to reduce runtime and complexity by
making the rules extensible or separable at startup.
Maybe move each existing rules into a separate
directory as an individual file and aggregate them at
checkpatch startup.
Maybe look at the existing rules that do not have a
$fix option and add them as appropriate.
You could fix the multiline indentation where the
current warning and fix is only for a single line
value = function(arg1,
arg2,
arg3);
where checkpatch emits only single warning and fix
for the line with arg2, but not the line with arg3);
Maybe try to make the coding styles supported more
flexible:
Allow braces in different places, support different
tab indentation sizes, spacing rules around operators,
function definition layouts, etc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists