From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762314AbaGRN4W (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:56:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:37488 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761298AbaGRN4S (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:56:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:56:12 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Borislav Petkov , akpm@linux-foundation.org, apw@canonical.com, joe@perches.com, tytso@mit.edu, dwalter@google.com, neilb@suse.de, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Remove --file option Message-ID: <20140718135612.GA18432@roeck-us.net> References: <1405611268-12463-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <53C8CCE1.4000105@roeck-us.net> <20140718082324.GA31270@pd.tnic> <53C92332.5010807@roeck-us.net> <53C92535.2010605@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53C92535.2010605@nod.at> 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, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 18.07.2014 15:37, schrieb Guenter Roeck: > > On 07/18/2014 01:23 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> First, 'abuse' is a relative term. It describes a use you > >>> (and possibly many others) may find objectionable, but that > >>> does not mean all uses are objectionable. > >> > >> Do you actually have a valid use case for keeping the cmdline switch ... > >> > > > > I find it convenient to be able to check a new file before committing it > > and creating a patch. Also, I find it convenient to be able use it to clean > > up a file before I do heavy lifting with it. Yes, I understand the latter > > is discouraged nowadays, and I would not use it anymore outside my scope > > of responsibility unless specifically asked by the maintainer to do so, > > but in such cases it helps me a lot to be able to address the cleanup > > prior to the heavy lifting. > > As capable kernel hacker you can still use a command like: > diff -urN /dev/null $file | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl - > Yes, that came up before. Or I can revert the patch locally, or keep an old version of checkpatch around. You make me suffer because someone else abuses the system. That someone will find other ways to abuse the system, such as using the same approach, or annoy you with something else, such as searching for "fixme" statements in the code or sending unhelpful emails about failing builds. The one thing you will not accomplish is to solve the problem. Guenter