From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933086AbcIOAJz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:09:55 -0400
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:51790 "EHLO
        relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1761983AbcIOAJy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:09:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:09:49 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Minimize checkpatch induced patches...
Message-ID: <20160915000949.GA12796@cloud>
References: <bb0fd4fc28b844ac9b63a58c9ffd24a88f7f78cc.1473875340.git.joe@perches.com>
 <d3d3b8a9-71de-4adf-d685-0a1cf9562389@de.ibm.com>
 <20160914235405.GB12672@cloud>
 <1473897909.32273.57.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1473897909.32273.57.camel@perches.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:05:09PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.

I'm not suggesting that checkpatch *needs* to do autodetection,
just pointing out this this proposed change doesn't preclude any future
autodetection.