From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760851AbaCUQMc (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:12:32 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:55304 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751948AbaCUQMa (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:12:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:11:11 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Jean Delvare Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Joe Perches , LKML Subject: Re: checkpatch on Kconfig files Message-ID: <20140321161111.GA18068@roeck-us.net> References: <20140321094239.18aebf02@endymion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140321094239.18aebf02@endymion.delvare> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 09:42:39AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andy, hi Joe, > > When running checkpatch on a patch which tweaks many Kconfig entries, I > got the following output: > > WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully > #74: FILE: drivers/hid/Kconfig:142: > config HID_BELKIN > > WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully > #82: FILE: drivers/hid/Kconfig:149: > config HID_CHERRY > > WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully > #135: FILE: drivers/hid/Kconfig:415: > config HID_MICROSOFT > > total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 88 lines checked > > I am not adding these entries, just tweaking the dependencies. Thus I > don't think it makes sense to print these warnings, they aren't > relevant to the changes I am making. There comment in checkpatch says: > > # check for Kconfig help text having a real description > # Only applies when adding the entry originally, after that we do not have > # sufficient context to determine whether it is indeed long enough. > > So I suspect these warnings aren't supposed to be displayed. I recall > hitting this many times in the past, in fact I think this is the most > frequent and oldest false positive I get from checkpatch. So I would > appreciate if this could be fixed, either by really limiting the > warning to Kconfig entries being added (if you can) or by dropping the > check altogether (if you can't.) > For my part this is the one and only checkpatch warning which I don't enfore and happily ignore myself. Might be interesting to get feedback from others if they think it is useful or just annoying. Guenter