On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:43:00AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Maybe some help/warning text like:
> >
> > --force Without --force, checkpatch will not scan files
> > using -f or --file outside of
> > drivers/staging/...
> > Do not use this option merely to create
> > potential
> > patches that are uncompiled or untested.
>
> Everyone compiles their patches hopefully? The problem is with patches
> that aren't really a cleanup but are just done to make checkpatch happy.
>
> I guess documenting --force is better than not documenting.
can i make a suggestion?
1) we can have some sort of symbol in the MAINTAINER file to show if that
maintainer wants style correction patch or not.
a) if the maintainer doesnot want to receive such patches then
checkpatch will only check that patch if that patch is part of a series, and
there should be an extra option in checkpatch so that the user can inform
checkpatch that it is a part of a series which is doing more than just style
cleanups.
b) And if the maintainer welcomes style check patches then checkpatch
can check the patch without any extra option and -f can also be enabld for
those files which are maintained by that particular maintainer.
2) is it not possible for checkpatch to check if the patch is already applied
to the file or not? if the patch is applied and the timestamp of the .o file is
older than the file in question then that will usually mean the user has not
compiled the patch.
my perl skills are excellent so i am not sure these are practical suggestions
or not .. :)
regards
sudip
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
