On Fri, 01/05 11:49, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, 01/03 15:54, Michael Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, 01/03 15:00, Michael Clark wrote: > >> > > So it's essentially one error, the single line case pattern for > >> > > table-driven decode which flags for long lines and asks to separate > >> > > break > >> > > onto its own line. > <snip> > >> > Thanks for taking a look! Practically, consistency with the rest of the > >> > code and > >> > human judgements (comments, explanation in replies etc.) often override > >> > the > >> > checkpatch complaints. Checkpatch is not always right. > <snip> > > Fam, > > I wonder is there anyway we could signal to patchew that there are some > acknowledged and approved coding style variances in the patch? Would > something like: > > CodingStyleExceptions: 12 > > Be too polluting to the commit messages? Or perhaps something that can > skip individual tests on a given run: > > CheckpatchFlags: --ignore-long-lines
It sounds feasible. Putting these flags after a --- line will keep commit message clean. OTOH I think we should spend effort on patching checkpatch.pl to implement this. Fam
