From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [xen 4.6 retrospective] [bad] Code style checking takes up too much time Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:47:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1441118850.26292.43.camel@citrix.com> References: <55E41DF4020000780009E29D@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <55E45584.2070204@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWmu8-0003PI-9G for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:51:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <55E45584.2070204@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper , Jan Beulich , Lars Kurth Cc: xen devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 14:24 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 31/08/15 08:27, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > On 28.08.15 at 17:39, wrote: > > > What may be a bigger issue, is that older code may not fully adhere > > > to > > > coding standards. The open question is then > > > * Whether such a tool should only run on the diff/patch > > Isn't that the intended / expected behavior of such a tool anyway? > > I would have thought so, and moreso only on the newly added lines. That's what Linux's checkpatch.pl does, I think.