Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [PATCH] checkpatch: Add comment about updating Documentation/CodingStyle

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 09/02/2013 12:50 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 11:59:27AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 15:39 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Em Mon, 2 Sep 2013 11:19:01 -0700
>>> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> escreveu:
>> []
>>>> +# This file does not define the kernel coding style; Documentation/CodingStyle
>>>> +# does.  If you add a new style test to this file, add the corresponding style
>>>> +# rule it enforces to Documentation/CodingStyle.
>>
>>> Agreed with that.
>>
>> I do not.
>>
>>> I would also add another comment there: "in case of
>>> conflicts between checkpatch.pl and Documentation/CodingStyle, the latter
>>> takes precedence."
>>
>> There are many checkpatch rules (like semicolons) that
>> are not in CodingStyle.
>
> It's a rule of thumb, not a mandate.  In *general*, checkpatch.pl should
> not be enforcing style rules that aren't documented in CodingStyle.
>

Oddly enough, the opposite is true as well. 3.1, spaces around binary
and ternary operators, is for example not enforced, presumably because
it would generate too many positives. Since I like that rule, I have
my private version of checkpatch.pl which does check for it. After all,
it _is_ a CodingStyle rule.

Guenter

>> CodingStyle should not become some intensely detailed
>> document that specifies the "only one true way" to
>> write code.
>
> Any rule that maintainers are likely to enforce on patches they review
> should live in Documentation/CodingStyle; unwritten rules are a bad
> idea.  Any rule that maintainers are *not* likely to enforce shouldn't
> go in scripts/checkpatch.pl.
>