From: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: U-Boot Users <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
Subject: Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:36:20 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi all,
There has been a bit of discussion lately on the U-Boot mailing list
regarding the use of checkpatch for U-Boot patches (see
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090954.html)
U-Boot uses the Linux coding style and checkpatch is therefore a very good
tool for us to use to check style compliance. However, checkpatch has a few
Linux specific checks which throw up false warnings for U-Boot patches like:
WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strto*
WARNING: Use #include <linux/$file> instead of <asm/$file>
Also, checkpatch seems to be checking not only patched lines, but context
lines as well. There is a policy for U-Boot patches to not intermix
whitespace / code cleanup changes and functional changes in in the same
patch. So to achieve zero warnings and errors, the submitter is forced to
create an additional code-cleanup patch in addition to the functionality
patch. The code cleanup can end up being significantly larger than the
functionality change which discourages casual submitters.
So I have a pretty simple question to ask of LKML - Will checkpatch patches
to create a 'U-Boot' command-line option to explicitly filter out Linux
specific warnings and errors ever be accepted into checkpatch, or will we
be required to create and maintain a U-Boot specific version?
P.S. If you could please keep the U-Boot mailing list Cc'd, that would be
appreciated
Regards,
Graeme
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:36:20 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi all,
There has been a bit of discussion lately on the U-Boot mailing list
regarding the use of checkpatch for U-Boot patches (see
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090954.html)
U-Boot uses the Linux coding style and checkpatch is therefore a very good
tool for us to use to check style compliance. However, checkpatch has a few
Linux specific checks which throw up false warnings for U-Boot patches like:
WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strto*
WARNING: Use #include <linux/$file> instead of <asm/$file>
Also, checkpatch seems to be checking not only patched lines, but context
lines as well. There is a policy for U-Boot patches to not intermix
whitespace / code cleanup changes and functional changes in in the same
patch. So to achieve zero warnings and errors, the submitter is forced to
create an additional code-cleanup patch in addition to the functionality
patch. The code cleanup can end up being significantly larger than the
functionality change which discourages casual submitters.
So I have a pretty simple question to ask of LKML - Will checkpatch patches
to create a 'U-Boot' command-line option to explicitly filter out Linux
specific warnings and errors ever be accepted into checkpatch, or will we
be required to create and maintain a U-Boot specific version?
P.S. If you could please keep the U-Boot mailing list Cc'd, that would be
appreciated
Regards,
Graeme
next reply other threads:[~2011-04-25 5:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-25 5:36 Graeme Russ [this message]
2011-04-25 5:36 ` [U-Boot] Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use Graeme Russ
2011-04-25 6:02 ` Joe Perches
2011-04-25 6:02 ` [U-Boot] " Joe Perches
2011-04-25 6:22 ` Graeme Russ
2011-04-25 6:22 ` [U-Boot] " Graeme Russ
2011-04-25 6:32 ` Joe Perches
2011-04-25 6:32 ` [U-Boot] " Joe Perches
2011-04-26 0:43 ` [RFC PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Add ability to ignore various messages Joe Perches
2011-04-26 0:43 ` [U-Boot] " Joe Perches
2011-06-09 19:26 ` Joe Perches
2011-06-09 19:26 ` [U-Boot] " Joe Perches
2011-06-09 19:40 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-06-09 19:40 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-07-27 21:17 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-07-27 21:17 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-07-27 22:10 ` Joe Perches
2011-07-27 22:10 ` Joe Perches
2011-08-24 21:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-08-24 21:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-08-24 21:33 ` Joe Perches
2011-08-24 21:33 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com \
--to=graeme.russ@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.