Re: checkpatch induced patches...

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Wed 2015-02-11 12:20:25, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to
> > >> make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside
> > >> of drivers/staging.
> > >>
> > >> o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file
> > >>   option for drivers/staging/
> > >> o Add an undocumented --force command line option
> > >
> > > Sure.  We could try that.  I once sent a patch to make -f generate a
> > > warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok.
> > >
> > >> o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging
> > >
> > > Ack.
> > 
> > FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic.
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415
> 
> Yeah, I remember.
> 
> It's always a pleasure to chat with Borislav.
> 
> This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion
> in that thread.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427
> 
> I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable
> to Pavel and Kalle.

Undocumented options are evil... You can add warning about not wasting
people's time in --force documentation...
									
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html