On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:57:42PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-10-29 14:54, David Marchand: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > I agree with both of you. > > > > I could suggest something but I'm afraid it will be difficult to have a > > > > consensus between a "quiet tool" and a "double check verbose tool". > > > > As it is a really critical piece of code, I think we should have a > > > meeting > > > > with a technical steering comittee ;) > > > > ... or we can add an option: -q or -v ? Debate is open :D > > > > > > Yes, the whole future of the project could hinge on this decision :-) > > > > Eheh :-) > > > > > Ok, my suggestion is both! > > > 1) Have the default (in case of no errors), be a single line print out at > > > the end > > > stating number of files scanned > > > 2) If "-q" flag specified, skip this > > > 3) If "-v" flag specified, do current behaviour with a line per file. > > > > Ok for me. > > I'm really happy we can have a sane consensus to this difficult question, > with just few emails! > Thanks guys :) > > PS: I will send a v2 when the easy task of RC1 integration will be done ;)
Another request, can you perhaps also fix the script for situations where checkpatch.pl is not in the kernel tree. I've used this script now to check a couple of patchsets, which came back clean, but it turns out that because I was using checkpatch.pl outside the kernel directory, it is passing things it shouldn't. [Thanks to Sergio for pointing this out]. Testing with a known-broken patch, this script indicates all ok, and only reports an error with the --no-tree added to the options inside the script. :-( /Bruce
