Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next (was Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adjust the position of a jump label in rbd_header_from_disk())

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for
> > > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well,
> > > the list has grown way too large and could use massive trimming.
> >
> > I'm in complete agreement.
> >
> > I also think that checkpatch's ERROR/WARNING/CHECK message naming is
> > far too severe and injunctive and could use a renaming to something
> > more silly, bug related and less commanding like FLEAS/GNATS/NITS.
> I think it is better to be clear.  CHECK was never really clear to me,
> especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have
> ERROR or WARNING.  NITS is a common word in this context, but not FLEAS
> and GNATS, as far as I know.
> There could also be a severity level: high medium and low

I agree clarity is good.

The seriousness with which some beginners take these message
types though is troublesome,

Maybe prefix various different types of style messages.

Something like:

ERROR	-> CODE_STYLE_DEFECT
WARNING -> CODE_STYLE_UNPREFERRED
CHECK	-> CODE_STYLE_NIT

I doubt additional external documentation would help much.

Some checkpatch bleats really are errors though.