On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where
> > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump
> > labels", then out of nowhere we were
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where
> you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump
> labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the
> output of checkpatch (how is t
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> The main intent of checkpatch these days appears to be providing an easy
> way of thoughtless inflation of commit counts, everything else be damned.
You've made this statement several times over many years.
I don't believe it's true.
I doubt anyo
> > The main intent of checkpatch these days appears to be providing an easy
> > way of thoughtless inflation of commit counts, everything else be damned.
> > Make-work, in other words.
>
> Yes, I've noticed the trend too :-( But that's a problem with the
> people using the tool, mostly, not with t
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:11:03 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > >
> > > MUST is much stronger language than I would prefer.
> >
> > That's what error means, really. When your compiler fails with an
> > error, you have no choice but to fix you
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >
> > MUST is much stronger language than I would prefer.
>
> That's what error means, really. When your compiler fails with an
> error, you have no choice but to fix your code. Warnings on the other
> hand may be ignored sometimes.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:43:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>
>> You could make checkpatch have different defaults for patches and files,
>> to encourage better style in new code, but to discourage finding
>> problems in existing code.
>
> Fixin
Hi Jani,
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:43:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > You need to think in terms of actual use cases. Who uses checkpatch and
> > why? I think there are 3 groups of users:
> > * Beginners. They won't run the script by themselves, instead th
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:42:10 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:24 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I would rather suggest:
> >
> > ERROR -> MUST_FIX
> > WARNING -> SHOULD_FIX
> > CHECK -> MAY_FIX
>
> MUST is much stronger language than I would prefer.
That's what error means, re
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:32:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> > I think it is better to be clear. CHECK was never really clear to me,
>> > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:24 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
[]
> > The seriousness with which some beginners take these message
> > types though is troublesome,
[]
> You need to think in terms of actual use cases. Who uses checkpatch and
> why? I think there are 3 groups of users:
> * Beginners. They wo
Hi Joe,
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:32:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > I think it is better to be clear. CHECK was never really clear to me,
> > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have
> > ERROR or WARNING. NITS
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for
> > > > some rule the
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for
> > > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, we
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for
> > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well,
> > the list has grown way too large and could use massi
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for
> some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well,
> the list has grown way too large and could use massive trimming.
I'm in complete agreement.
I also th
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:53:37PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > I did consider the reason to be good enough to warrant a "change",
> > actually. Or more exactly from "one space is allowed" to "one space is
> > recommended." Which is quite different from changing all the code
> > actively. I can u
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Ilya,
>
> Sorry for the late answer.
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:31:57 +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> Sorry, navigating lkml.org archive is a pain, and I was expecting to
>> see patch. Your points
>>
>> "The acceptance of an optional single
18 matches
Mail list logo
