From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932163AbcITGqy (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:46:54 -0400 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:55621 "EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751040AbcITGqw (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:46:52 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,366,1470693600"; d="scan'208";a="193988984" Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:46:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Joe Perches cc: Julia Lawall , Al Viro , Ilya Dryomov , Andy Whitcroft , Linus Torvalds , Jean Delvare , Jonathan Corbet , Ceph Development , Alex Elder , Sage Weil , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next (was Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adjust the position of a jump label in rbd_header_from_disk()) In-Reply-To: <1474353123.1954.28.camel@perches.com> Message-ID: References: <20160920001159.GM2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1474339566.1954.25.camel@perches.com> <1474353123.1954.28.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-925751737-1474354008=:3346" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-925751737-1474354008=:3346 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for > > > > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well, > > > > the list has grown way too large and could use massive trimming. > > > > > > I'm in complete agreement. > > > > > > I also think that checkpatch's ERROR/WARNING/CHECK message naming is > > > far too severe and injunctive and could use a renaming to something > > > more silly, bug related and less commanding like FLEAS/GNATS/NITS. > > I think it is better to be clear.  CHECK was never really clear to me, > > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have > > ERROR or WARNING.  NITS is a common word in this context, but not FLEAS > > and GNATS, as far as I know. > > There could also be a severity level: high medium and low > > I agree clarity is good. > > The seriousness with which some beginners take these message > types though is troublesome, It's not necessarily the case that changing the error type will change the behavior of the persons in question. > Maybe prefix various different types of style messages. > > Something like: > > ERROR -> CODE_STYLE_DEFECT > WARNING -> CODE_STYLE_UNPREFERRED > CHECK -> CODE_STYLE_NIT > > I doubt additional external documentation would help much. > > Some checkpatch bleats really are errors though. Maybe just downgrade more things? Perhaps SUGGESTION would be more clear than CHECK? julia --8323329-925751737-1474354008=:3346--