Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next (was Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adj

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1683 bytes --]



On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:

> 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,

It's not necessarily the case that changing the error type will change the
behavior of the persons in question.

> 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.

Maybe just downgrade more things?

Perhaps SUGGESTION would be more clear than CHECK?

julia