From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:53:26 +0000 Subject: Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next (was Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adj Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20160920001159.GM2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1474339566.1954.25.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1474339566.1954.25.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Joe Perches Cc: Al Viro , Ilya Dryomov , Andy Whitcroft , Linus Torvalds , Jean Delvare , Jonathan Corbet , Ceph Development , Alex Elder , Sage Weil , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Andrew Morton , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org 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. julia > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >