linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] checkpatch: add verbose mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a0f05bbd5880a7d498af21c5013fa5895d6e3ca7.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Feb 2021 02:50:14 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] checkpatch: add verbose mode

On Thu, 2021-02-25 at 21:55 +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:38:03 +0530
> Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> escreveu:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 13:22 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:  
> > > > Add a new verbose mode to checkpatch. The verbose test
> > > > descriptions are read from the checkpatch documentation
> > > > file at `Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst`.
> > > > 
> > > > The verbose mode is optional and can be enabled by the
> > > > flag -v or --verbose.
> > > > 
> > > > The documentation file is only parsed by checkpatch.pl
> > > > if the verbose mode is enabled. The verbose mode can
> > > > not be used together with the --terse option.  
> > > 
> > > I don't have any real objection to this patch set, but as this
> > > might be added to the Documentation tree and in .rst format,
> > > perhaps Jonathan Corbet and/or Mauro Carvalho Chehab might have
> > > some opinion.
> > > 
> > > Also I do not want to be a maintainer of this .rst file and
> > > likely neither Jon nor Mauro would either.  Perhaps you?
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
> > I could take it up if everybody is okay with it!
> > 
> > > Ideally, the patch order would be reversed so the .rst file
> > > is added first, then checkpatch updated to use it.
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure, if Jonathan or Mauro has no objections to it, I will be happy
> > to resend it so that it can be picked up properly.
> 
> I don't have any objections, provided that I won't be maintaining
> it :-)
> 
> -
> 
> Just my two cents:
> 
> IMO, maintaining this on a separate file can be a maintenance nightmare, 
> as this is the kind of thing that can become obsolete real soon.
> 
> One alternative would be to use Pod::Usage module, just like
> this script does:
> 
> 	scripts/get_abi.pl
> 
> with something similar to that, calling
> 
> 	$ checkpatch --man 
> 
> Could generate a man-page style with all options, while:
> 
> 	$ checkpatch --help
> 
> would print the current help page.
> 
> Yet, this would generate more work for Joe, as, for every new
> type, the corresponding help text would be needed.

Does this get integrated into the .rst output?

I see:
Documentation/Makefile:$(shell $(srctree)/scripts/get_abi.pl validate --dir $(srctree)/Documentation/ABI)

But no obvious mechanism that emits .rst files for Pod::Usage

And no, I'm not much interested in maintaining those docs either.