From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Detlev Zundel Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:40:14 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Policy for checkpatch usage? In-Reply-To: (Graeme Russ's message of "Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:43:11 +1000") References: Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Graeme, > On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Graeme Russ wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2011, Detlev Zundel wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >> >>> >>> As a base for discussion, what about this: >>> >>> ??Use common sense in interpreting the results of checkpatch. Warnings >>> ??that clearly only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored. ?Also >>> ??warnings produced for _context lines_ rather than actual changes can >>> ??also be ignored. >> >> One man's common sense is another's idiocy >> >> I vote for a zero warnings, zero errors U-Boot specific checkpatch >> > > I also think that all patches should be submitted with a checkpatch > summary with an explaination for any errors or warnings - this will at > least save a little effort for the maintainers and reduce the number of > patches bounced only to have the checkpatch problems argued away > by the author anyway When we accept 0 errors and 0 warnings only, then we will always see the same text :) As long as we are not there, I do agree but then we should come up with a recipe on how to automate this. I looked into git format-patch but it does not seem to have such an option. Does anyone have a clever one-liner for this? Cheers Detlev -- Math and Alcohol don't mix, so... PLEASE DON'T DRINK AND DERIVE [Motto of the society: Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving] -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de