[U-Boot] Auto checkpatch

[U-Boot] Auto checkpatch

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Wolfgang,

I don't know if you have partially or fully automated your checkpatch'ing
but it looks like an automated daemon which grabs patches as they hit the
ML and runs them through checkpatch and does an auto-reply if any errors
or warning crop-up could be a good thing (even if the auto-reply is to the
author only so it doesn't clutter the list). This would free your time up
and also give patch authors faster feedback (and keep on annoying them so
they remember to run checkpatch)

Could also make it Cc the ML with a 'checkpatch clean' message so we all
can see that a checkpatch has been run

Alternativelty, we could make it a requirement of patch submittion that in
addition to the SoB, the author must include a checkpatch summary (below
the --)

Regards,

Graeme

[U-Boot] Auto checkpatch

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Graeme Russ,

In message <CALButC+DQ9070sQvzwYLvQ4bBL2+rTDByKbDqjxruVNPiwspPw@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> I don't know if you have partially or fully automated your checkpatch'ing

Only partially. I see that I still need to manyally inspect the
results before replying. But I'm playing a bit with the thought of
automating this, indeed.

> but it looks like an automated daemon which grabs patches as they hit the
> ML and runs them through checkpatch and does an auto-reply if any errors
> or warning crop-up could be a good thing (even if the auto-reply is to the
> author only so it doesn't clutter the list). This would free your time up
> and also give patch authors faster feedback (and keep on annoying them so
> they remember to run checkpatch)

Indeed. Unfortunately I still gat way too many cases where manual
inspection is needed. But an automatic tool that just queues such
rejects for review could be useful as well.

> Could also make it Cc the ML with a 'checkpatch clean' message so we all
> can see that a checkpatch has been run
> 
> Alternativelty, we could make it a requirement of patch submittion that in
> addition to the SoB, the author must include a checkpatch summary (below
> the --)

Guess how many would do that?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
How many seconds are there in a year? If I tell you there are 3.155 x
10^7, you won't even try to remember it. On the other hand, who could
forget that, to within half a percent, pi seconds is  a  nanocentury.
                                               -- Tom Duff, Bell Labs

[U-Boot] Auto checkpatch

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Wolfgang,

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
>
> In message <CALButC+DQ9070sQvzwYLvQ4bBL2+rTDByKbDqjxruVNPiwspPw@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>>

[snip]

>> Alternativelty, we could make it a requirement of patch submittion that in
>> addition to the SoB, the author must include a checkpatch summary (below
>> the --)
>
> Guess how many would do that?

When you start to bounce patches, the number will increase, just like when
patches get bounced for lack of SoB :)

I cannot imagine it would be that hard to create a utility script we could all
use that runs git-format-patch then checkpatch on each generated patch and
adds the output to the generated patches. I might have a look this weekend,
but my script-fu is not very powerful...

Regards,

Graeme