From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D7DCA4B; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 19:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752781303; cv=none; b=cc24PRMs8tAFecty/GTOXwqbxGXamSdllLWwLq+MYHWvAKI0kyc7zEhX84E3mp43qT4q/4o/uTg4ndQBXfqsGaR/+t2/mXlKzHLiKlHN1Up5nguhMALgF0M8KVQmA/lFOXHFFLJtXjSbqCGczi02mQpb8+C5pJhFAJUOxm3a2K8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752781303; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KQPRLbjIIFFOLW6bfUb07pFVo+R2I5cI4/b2Zw2nJpQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JtB7F/XsQTpb1Oy0/j5HtOXyEULfKp6PClZDl8HeFKGQGLCLc/XjGuIp3+i/E+PbHKVZLAsmuSgOSnwapw6LBvFsOEN+HJE5jQBkvsQ9kjpC5MIN76dYsxzXdD2LP/Z3ZVbevbK6Llga8nFKB+4Wk09cRbzIBjOki/Vz3S3YuJQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=Kswv4wdi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="Kswv4wdi" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 15AF6403E1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1752781301; bh=rmvWRnG6YIOBViJ2519P+js6uMde+DaULhJoWx6eh/Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Kswv4wdistut/nhc8EsaxC7nydVG+Wqs6cass9aVKrs7lQnUyQxCIAThC9flJtbbN s1uSV4qmIHIf9HTwjWp8mLOncS5byP9ozLfbfhVpT4xvGODjv85crF11Ua72xIKjMZ d1ozQeORbSzl7ZyKcBs1p32iMBB8mwaO3UwoS8gkunjPnp8bIr2qZfL/cfCDzD4voU LUdj9BAlEMPq7ag+e9BYOSrcEKZORz+XIivEwjvDR9UudqloNdl3GnziuF5/8Zmabx xYs6R0bwbiXMO5cXO36rHwDwimmRsjNfFGGxDDAEdFkp19rVlG5kZwyDPVS2lJ56rk uGOvNZkmRZkdQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15AF6403E1; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 19:41:41 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Ignacio =?utf-8?Q?Pe=C3=B1a?= Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Add patch-validator to dev-tools In-Reply-To: <20250717162948.23078-1-ignacio.pena87@gmail.com> References: <87wmjy92r6.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20250717162948.23078-1-ignacio.pena87@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 13:41:40 -0600 Message-ID: <875xfqbo5n.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ignacio Pe=C3=B1a writes: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 09:38:00AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Interesting ... overall, we don't generally have detailed documentation >> for out-of-tree utilities, though there isn't necessarily any reason why >> we couldn't. But I'm curious as to why you haven't submitted the tool >> itself? > > That's a great question! I kept it external for a few reasons: > > First, I'm still pretty new to kernel development and wanted the freedom > to iterate quickly as I learn what checks are actually useful. Being=20 > external means I can push updates immediately when someone points out > a new common mistake (like Greg just did with the date check!). I would guess, though, that you would get more people pointing things out if you were to post the tool to the list and eventually get it in. The kernel cycle isn't *that* slow in the end... > Second, I wrote everything in bash for simplicity, which probably isn't > the best fit for the kernel's scripts/ directory. Plus, as Greg mentioned > in his reply, many of these checks really belong in checkpatch.pl rather > than a separate tool. It wouldn't be the only bash script, certainly. > So my plan now is to work on patches for checkpatch.pl to add the most > useful checks there (where they belong), while keeping the workflow=20 > helpers as an external toolkit. It's your tool, you should develop it as you see fit, but keeping it separate will make it harder to attract people to try it out. Sending improvements to checkpatch is, of course, a good thing to do. > Given this direction, would you prefer I withdraw this documentation=20 > patch? I'm happy either way - just thought it might help other newcomers > in the meantime, but I totally understand if you'd rather wait until > the checks are properly integrated into checkpatch.pl. For now, it's probably best to keep the documentation with the tool itself; at least, that's how it seems to me. Thanks, jon