On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > I think this is going to be difficult to review, to say the least. > > Where does your patch come from? Is the kernel's checkpatch.pl > just a single commit between 0.31 and 0.32 (surely not) or > a series of fixes?
Yes, this is today's version of the kernel's checkpatch.pl. Version 0.32 is the product of many patches onto 0.31 > A couple of ideas about how we could approach this: > (1) make a commit which is simply copying the kernel's 0.32 > into our repo; then follow that with a series of commits which > re-apply our local changes. > (2) apply all the individual commits from the kernel between 0.31 > and 0.32 to our repo > (3) give up and stick with 0.31... idea (1) makes perfect sense to me, and the local changes will be easy to review. > It might also be helpful if you could describe the benefits > we get from this update (any bugfixes for false positives we > tend to run into? useful new checks?) I think its a valid question whether to forward-port the Qemu checks to 0.32. I'm not sure, myself, but this gives folks an idea of what the cost/benefit is. Yesterday I was bitten by the StudlyCaps syndrome in a patch I submitted which was checkpatch-clean. Afterward I noticed that version 0.31 has the check for StudlyCaps commented out. This is corrected in version 0.32 with a more ambitious check for "CamelCase." The CamelCase check in v0.32 tries to determine if the patch introduced StudlyCaps or if they already exist in the unpatched source file. (I was hoping for a three-line check I could paste into v0.31.) I noticed some other new features - it uses an optional configuration file, checks for validly formed email addresses. The other changes I believe, are either experimental or providing tools for filtering or typing messages. Mike
