Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] checkpatch: add verbose mode

[Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:29 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:08 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 13:22 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > Add a new verbose mode to checkpatch. The verbose test
> > > > descriptions are read from the checkpatch documentation
> > > > file at `Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst`.
> > > >
> > > > The verbose mode is optional and can be enabled by the
> > > > flag -v or --verbose.
> > > >
> > > > The documentation file is only parsed by checkpatch.pl
> > > > if the verbose mode is enabled. The verbose mode can
> > > > not be used together with the --terse option.
> > >
> > > I don't have any real objection to this patch set, but as this
> > > might be added to the Documentation tree and in .rst format,
> > > perhaps Jonathan Corbet and/or Mauro Carvalho Chehab might have
> > > some opinion.
> > >
> > > Also I do not want to be a maintainer of this .rst file and
> > > likely neither Jon nor Mauro would either.  Perhaps you?
> > >
> >
> > I could take it up if everybody is okay with it!
> >
>
> And as I set Dwaipayan on this task on documenting checkpatch, I will
> assist in maintaining this file as well. I will also pull some strings
> to increase chances that Dwaipayan becomes a longer-term member in
> this community and on this maintainer task.
>
Sounds nice to me! I would definitely love to remain as a active
member even after the mentorship period ends. So I think this is a good
start :)

> > > Ideally, the patch order would be reversed so the .rst file
> > > is added first, then checkpatch updated to use it.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, if Jonathan or Mauro has no objections to it, I will be happy
> > to resend it so that it can be picked up properly.
> >
> > > And _a lot_ more types and descriptive content should be added.
> >
> > Yes that's for sure. If this makes it I will try to get all of the
> > other types in.
>
> I agree as well, probably a critical mass for inclusion is that we
> have at least 25% (so roughly 50 rules) documented.
>
> > And if Lukas agrees, a little help from my fellow kernel mentees will
> > be nice as well!
> >
>
> Completely agree. I will recruit new mentees and go through the
> exercises with them, until they are ready to send proper patches to
> checkpatch.rst. As the designated maintainer of that file, you will be
> busy reviewing, consolidating that content and pushing back if it is
> not good enough for inclusion (so just as in the typical "good cop-bad
> cop" game: I will motivate and help them to submit, you make sure you
> get good content).
>
That is a nice plan! Certainly looking forward to it.

Thanks & Regards,
Dwaipayan.
_______________________________________________
Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees