From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764290AbcIOAFQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:05:16 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0068.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.68]:33982 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752232AbcIOAFO (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:05:14 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3865:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:7875:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12663:12740:12760:13069:13073:13311:13357:13439:14096:14097:14659:14721:21080:21324:30012:30029:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: girls97_8493b38276904 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2275 Message-ID: <1473897909.32273.57.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Minimize checkpatch induced patches... From: Joe Perches To: Josh Triplett , Christian Borntraeger Cc: Andrew Morton , Andy Whitcroft , Greg KH , Jonathan Corbet , "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:05:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160914235405.GB12672@cloud> References: <20160914235405.GB12672@cloud> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.21.91-1ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 16:54 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:56:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > On 09/14/2016 07:51 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > checkpatch can be a useful tool for patches. > > > > > > It can be a much more controversial tool when used on files with the > > > -f option for style and whitespace changes for code that is relatively > > > stable, obsolete, or for maintained by specific individuals. [] > > This will certainly help to reduce the noise. On the other hand I remember Linus > > saying something along the line that he does not like the -f parameter (and he > > prefers to set this automatically). So while I like the approach I am not happy > > enough to ack right now - still looking for a better alternative :-/ > This seems entirely compatible with autodetection. If checkpatch > detects that it runs on a file rather than a patch, it can assume -f. > It can then apply this same logic to reject that if 1) in a kernel tree > and 2) running on a non-staging file and 3) not passed --force. checkpatch doesn't do autodetection and there's no real need for it to do it either. The reason is in the name. get_maintainer does.