Re: Clarification on the behaviour of checkpatch.pl

Re: Clarification on the behaviour of checkpatch.pl

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Mon, 20 Apr 2020 02:20:19 +0200
Saheed Bolarinwa <refactormyself@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hello,
> 
> My experience is that checkpatch.pl will not flag some warnings when I use
> 
> the '-f' flag. This especially true for .rst files. My understanding is 
> that this flag
> 
> is needed to use it with a raw source file instead of a patch.
> 
> Please, I will like to confirm if this is a normal behaviour or is it my 
> system setup.
> 
> Below is an example from the current stable release linux-5.6.y
> 
>     [saheed@net linux-stable]$ perl ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f
>     ./Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst
>     total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 279 lines checked
> 
>     ./Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst has no
>     obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> 
> 
>     [saheed@net linux-stable]$ perl ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
>     ./Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst
>     WARNING: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75
>     chars per line)
>     #6:
>     TAA is a hardware vulnerability that allows unprivileged speculative
>     access to
> 
>     ERROR: Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch
> 
>     total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 0 lines checked

If you don't use "-f" flag, then you need to pass a patch to checkpatch,
e. g.:

	git show --pretty=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl

That's btw what you need to do with all patches you would submit upstream.

The "-f" flag is used only when you want to run a check on an entire file
(and not to the lines modified by a patch).


Thanks,
Mauro

Re: Clarification on the behaviour of checkpatch.pl

[Saheed Bolarinwa]

On 4/20/20 8:56 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 20 Apr 2020 02:20:19 +0200
> Saheed Bolarinwa <refactormyself@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My experience is that checkpatch.pl will not flag some warnings when I use
>>
>> the '-f' flag. This especially true for .rst files. My understanding is
>> that this flag
>>
>> is needed to use it with a raw source file instead of a patch.
>>
>> Please, I will like to confirm if this is a normal behaviour or is it my
>> system setup.
>>
>> Below is an example from the current stable release linux-5.6.y
>>
>>      [saheed@net linux-stable]$ perl ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f
>>      ./Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst
>>      total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 279 lines checked
>>
>>      ./Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst has no
>>      obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
>>
>>
>>      [saheed@net linux-stable]$ perl ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>      ./Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst
>>      WARNING: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75
>>      chars per line)
>>      #6:
>>      TAA is a hardware vulnerability that allows unprivileged speculative
>>      access to
>>
>>      ERROR: Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch
>>
>>      total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 0 lines checked
> If you don't use "-f" flag, then you need to pass a patch to checkpatch,
> e. g.:
>
> 	git show --pretty=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
> That's btw what you need to do with all patches you would submit upstream.
>
> The "-f" flag is used only when you want to run a check on an entire file
> (and not to the lines modified by a patch).
>
>
Thank you for the clarification.

Saheed