From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35490950 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4DEE149 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:35:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Greg KH In-Reply-To: <20160914143205.GA11149@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20160913194520.GA8071@cloud> <20160913140322.3ccad27c@lwn.net> <4691924.fimvUkKjuv@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160914020332.GA9558@cloud> <1473819862.32273.16.camel@perches.com> <20160914115456.GB22341@kroah.com> <1473863028.32273.28.camel@perches.com> <20160914143205.GA11149@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Joe Perches , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] checkpatch/Codingstyle and trivial patch spam List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:23:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 13:54 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:24:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 19:03 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > "Do > > > > > not mass-reformat existing code, even if it doesn't follow these > > > > > guidelines; doing so creates noise in version control history and makes > > > > > patches fail to apply." > > > > Or maybe add something like a new entry for what types of changes > > > > are acceptable with a default of "none" > > > > C: Whitespace and Style > > > Ick, no, we have way too many things in the MAINTAINERS file as it is... > > > > So what would use propose instead? > > > > I think the primary issue is people using "scripts/checkpatch.pl -f" > > > > I think that shouldn't be done without an understanding of when > > it is useful and when it is not useful to use that -f option. > > I agree, people get annoyed by this. I personally think that anyone who > does get annoyed by it should just ignore them, or fix up the code to > not get triggered by the reports. > > But who am I to complain :) > > > I have proposed adding an undocumented --force option to checkpatch > > which would disallow -f unless --force is also used. > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/11/433 > > > > Does anyone object to this? The --force is only required for non-staging code? If it is required for staging code, then we will have to document it in the outreachy tutorial, and then all the (non-outreachy) newbies who look at the tutorial will know about it... julia