[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2] checkpatch.pl: seed camelcase from the provided kernel tree root

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 19:33 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 01:04 +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote:
> > From: Keller, Jacob E

Hi all.

> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The first is clearly a false warning, thinks checkpatch is the tool
> > > > that found the error rather than the tool being fixed.? ;)?? The second is just
> > > > a long line in the perl code, which I don't really consider a blocking issue so...
> > > Ya I saw those. I saw many lines over 80 characters in the file so I
> > > just assumed we don't bother checking the tool with itself.
> > Well, it showed up in as a patch so I ran it through...? But yeah, it
> > does not make sense to enforce rules intended for the kernel against
> > something else.? Especially as the precedent for line length is clearly
> > already in the file
> Although it technically is a part of the kernel source since it is in
> scripts. ?So the question is, should kernel scripts follow the coding
> standards? ?If so, then yes it should follow its own rules for kernel
> source.
> 
> Personally I do not think it should be an issue for the contents of
> /scripts in the kernel source, but that would be an interesting question to
> pose to Joe Perches and the other checkpatch.pl warlords.

Warlord? ?Damn. ?Where are my spoils of war?

Perl is already basically unintelligible.
80 column perl would be a whole lot worse.

Anyway, I don't look at scripts with checkpatch.

I think it's really only useful for .[ch] files.