From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752060Ab1DYFg3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:36:29 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:53308 "EHLO mail-px0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498Ab1DYFg1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:36:27 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=LJxzP1EIVxYuxvLFhDHSIwHZ1iyGNKpOBVftEHuDGuXboqwKDef949OuG7pXmNmrFB zrxjutcbNuFKEIzbqK2RjXMHBWl6/ZRgcmtngEf8mD3Zs09CiBiNanQcMaU1wnbNIyjk FMUDLz8NzEmrA4j0ZYF/hcAudhHeZyvYk7zMU= Message-ID: <4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:36:20 +1000 From: Graeme Russ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LKML CC: U-Boot Users Subject: Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, There has been a bit of discussion lately on the U-Boot mailing list regarding the use of checkpatch for U-Boot patches (see http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090954.html) U-Boot uses the Linux coding style and checkpatch is therefore a very good tool for us to use to check style compliance. However, checkpatch has a few Linux specific checks which throw up false warnings for U-Boot patches like: WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strto* WARNING: Use #include instead of Also, checkpatch seems to be checking not only patched lines, but context lines as well. There is a policy for U-Boot patches to not intermix whitespace / code cleanup changes and functional changes in in the same patch. So to achieve zero warnings and errors, the submitter is forced to create an additional code-cleanup patch in addition to the functionality patch. The code cleanup can end up being significantly larger than the functionality change which discourages casual submitters. So I have a pretty simple question to ask of LKML - Will checkpatch patches to create a 'U-Boot' command-line option to explicitly filter out Linux specific warnings and errors ever be accepted into checkpatch, or will we be required to create and maintain a U-Boot specific version? P.S. If you could please keep the U-Boot mailing list Cc'd, that would be appreciated Regards, Graeme From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Graeme Russ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:36:20 +1000 Subject: [U-Boot] Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use Message-ID: <4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi all, There has been a bit of discussion lately on the U-Boot mailing list regarding the use of checkpatch for U-Boot patches (see http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090954.html) U-Boot uses the Linux coding style and checkpatch is therefore a very good tool for us to use to check style compliance. However, checkpatch has a few Linux specific checks which throw up false warnings for U-Boot patches like: WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strto* WARNING: Use #include instead of Also, checkpatch seems to be checking not only patched lines, but context lines as well. There is a policy for U-Boot patches to not intermix whitespace / code cleanup changes and functional changes in in the same patch. So to achieve zero warnings and errors, the submitter is forced to create an additional code-cleanup patch in addition to the functionality patch. The code cleanup can end up being significantly larger than the functionality change which discourages casual submitters. So I have a pretty simple question to ask of LKML - Will checkpatch patches to create a 'U-Boot' command-line option to explicitly filter out Linux specific warnings and errors ever be accepted into checkpatch, or will we be required to create and maintain a U-Boot specific version? P.S. If you could please keep the U-Boot mailing list Cc'd, that would be appreciated Regards, Graeme