From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:17:42 -0700 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2] checkpatch.pl: seed camelcase from the provided kernel tree root In-Reply-To: <1472697962.4176.77.camel@perches.com> References: <20160829210047.25111-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B81F7A0C0@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5857B8D29D@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com> <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B81F7A333@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <1472697190.2453.14.camel@intel.com> <1472697962.4176.77.camel@perches.com> Message-ID: <1472699862.2453.18.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 19:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > 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? I thought you got $0.02 for every checkpatch.pl warning and $0.05 for every error found? :-) > Perl is already basically unintelligible. > 80 column perl would be a whole lot worse. Agreed. > Anyway, I don't look at scripts with checkpatch. > > I think it's really only useful for .[ch] files. So should a modification be made to anything in scripts/* for when checkpatch.pl is run? ?I know that there are *special* rules for drivers/net/*, so it should be easy to apply whatever checks are pertinent for scripts/*? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: