Re: Checkpatch: False positive

[Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:58:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 16:43 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:35:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > #31: 
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c         | 198 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 
> > I guess those are in the limbo land between the end of message and
> > beginning of the patch itself.  Perhaps the test should at least stop at
> > the end of header marker, at the '---'.
> > 
> > -apw
> 
> Maybe, but the test already stops at signatures like
> Signed-off-by: that should always be above the ---.
> 
> This might help, but there are _many_ false positives.
> 
> The other thing that might help is for people to take
> the warnings the script produces less seriously.
> 
> Maybe convert:
> 
> ERROR -> defect
> WARNING -> unstylish
> CHECK -> nitpick

Heh, that has long been the main issue, please please believe your brain
not checkpatch.  But yes some less inflamitory words might, just might,
reduce the noise.

-apw