On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 04:28:51AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Actually, these would seem to be better as one or multiple functions with
> local statics or even as static inlines functions in the .h file
>
> $ git grep -w RTW_WPA_OUI drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core
> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/co
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 03:49:12PM +0100, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:54:24AM +0100, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > here's an issue in checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > > $ perl script/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/stagin
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:54:24AM +0100, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here's an issue in checkpatch.pl
> >
> > $ perl script/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> >
> > I get three warning related to an extern
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 04:28:51AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-03-20 at 11:59 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:54:24AM +0100, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > here's an issue in checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > > $ perl script/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/rtl87
On Sat, 2021-03-20 at 11:59 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:54:24AM +0100, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here's an issue in checkpatch.pl
> >
> > $ perl script/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> >
> > I get three warning related to an extern declar
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:54:24AM +0100, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's an issue in checkpatch.pl
>
> $ perl script/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
>
> I get three warning related to an extern declaration
>
> WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
> #14: F
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:33 PM Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:47 PM Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > include/asm/ got removed a long time back (probably v1.1.45).
> > Checkpatch still worries about that:
> >
> > if ($realfile =~ m@^include/asm/@) {
> > ERROR("MODIFIED
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:47 PM Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
>
> Hello,
> include/asm/ got removed a long time back (probably v1.1.45).
> Checkpatch still worries about that:
>
> if ($realfile =~ m@^include/asm/@) {
> ERROR("MODIFIED_INCLUDE_ASM",
> "do not modify files in include/asm, change architecture
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 13:14 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Would it be possible to teach checkpatch not to warn about
> canonical references to earlier commits? E.g.
>
> WARNING: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per
> line)
> #7:
> commit e80634a75aba ("EDAC, skx: Ret
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 09:34 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> > Sent: 10 December 2020 05:26
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 19:13 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Joe,
> >
> > Hi Thomas.
> >
> > > the below made it through my filters for some reason so I actually
> > > looked an
From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 10 December 2020 05:26
>
> On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 19:13 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Joe,
>
> Hi Thomas.
>
> > the below made it through my filters for some reason so I actually
> > looked and immediately wondered why checkpatch.pl did not identify this
> > as pure
On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 19:13 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Joe,
Hi Thomas.
> the below made it through my filters for some reason so I actually
> looked and immediately wondered why checkpatch.pl did not identify this
> as pure garbage.
>
> Original mail is here:
> lore.kernel.org/r/69cb540a-
On 9/1/20 5:37 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 12:48 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
>> uninitialized_var() macro was removed from the sources [1] and
>> other warning-silencing tricks were deprecated [2]. The purpose of this
>> cocci script is to prevent new occurrences of uninitiali
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:49:00 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:54:41 +0200 SeongJae Park wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, the inexperienced _do_ in fact run
> > > > > > checkpatch on files and submit inappropriate
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:54:41 +0200 SeongJae Park wrote:
>
> > > > > Unfortunately, the inexperienced _do_ in fact run
> > > > > checkpatch on files and submit inappropriate patches.
>
> I don't think I really agree with the "new code only
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:54:41 +0200 SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, the inexperienced _do_ in fact run
> > > > checkpatch on files and submit inappropriate patches.
I don't think I really agree with the "new code only" guideline (where
did this come from, anyway?). 10 years from now
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:33:28 +0200 "Michał Mirosław"
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:07:48PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 09:42:06 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 17:36 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Jo
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:07:48PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 09:42:06 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 17:36 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> > > > I do not want to encourage relatively in
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 09:42:06 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 17:36 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > I do not want to encourage relatively inexperienced people
> > > to run checkpatch and submit inappropriate patches
On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 17:36 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > I do not want to encourage relatively inexperienced people
> > to run checkpatch and submit inappropriate patches.
>
> Me, neither. But, I think providing more warnings and refe
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:45 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -721,6 +721,7 @@ sub read_word_corrections {
> > my %deprecated_terms_fix;
> > read_word_corrections($deprec
On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:45 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -721,6 +721,7 @@ sub read_word_corrections {
> my %deprecated_terms_fix;
> read_word_corrections($deprecated_terms_file, \%deprecated_terms_fix);
> my $deprecated_terms =
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 00:29:05 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:18 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:27:07 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches wro
On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:18 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:27:07 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Miros
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:27:07 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I see that this patch wen
On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
> > > do wrong things [1
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
> > do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective'
> > switch or other
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
> do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective'
> switch or otherwise mark it clearly as suggestion-only?
>
> The coding-style as in
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
> do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective'
> switch or otherwise mark it clearly as suggestion-only?
>
> The coding-style as in
Hello,
I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective'
switch or otherwise mark it clearly as suggestion-only?
The coding-style as in Linus' master says about *NEW* uses of the words
listed (those introduc
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 12:18 -0700, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> The patch titled
> Subject: checkpatch: use patch subject when reading from stdin
> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> checkpatch-use-patch-subject-when-reading-from-stdin.patch
Hey Andrew:
Please appl
> No, we don't need to support other quotation character for 'Fixes:' tag
> at least now. The submitting-patches.rst tells us the pretty format is:
> “...
> Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
> ...”
Can such a data structure still be correctly parsed if the commit title
would contain double quotes?
How do you th
On (10/10/19 20:23), Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:52 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
>
> Hi Sergey.
Hi Joe,
For some reason your reply triggered gmail spam filter; took
me a while to notice and "recover" it from spam folder.
[..]
> > Both LINUX_VERSION_CODE and KER
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:52 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Hi Sergey.
> I noticed that this code
>
> #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(4, 18, 0)
>
> triggers checkpatch's warning:
>
> "WARNING: Comparisons should place the constant on
> the right
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:02 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I run checkpatch.pl with a patch doing reverting operation, it
> reports a false positive error, Should I ignore the error or it's a bug?
Ignore it.
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 13:44 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>
> I ran checkpatch.pl against the following:
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1136334/
>
>
> I did update MAINTAINERS, but I still get
> "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" warning.
> Why?
Because checkpatch is not
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 02:34:46AM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> Any hints to get rid of the noisy warnings in sched.h that make it
> hard to spot real warnings:
>
> /include/linux/sched.h:609:43: error: bad integer constant expression
> /include/linux/sched.h:609:73: error: invalid named zero-widt
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 02:34:46AM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> Any hints to get rid of the noisy warnings in sched.h that make it
> hard to spot real warnings:
>
> /include/linux/sched.h:609:43: error: bad integer constant expression
> /include/linux/sched.h:609:73: error: invalid named zero-widt
On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 13:02 -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> scripts/checkpatch.pl contains this code near line 3070:
>
>if ($realfile =~ /\.(h|s|S)$/) {
> $comment = '/*';
> } elsif ($realfile
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 10:56 +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the following fragment of code:
>
> +struct my_struct {
> + atomic_long_t l __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> +} __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
>
>
> triggering this warning, when fed to checkpatch.pl:
>
> WARNIN
> OK. How about:
>
> though this might not work on a path with spaces
> or some such...
>
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index f25f708cd2a7..afb9fb27908c 100755
> --- a/scri
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 17:52 +0200, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
> > Does this work for you:
> > ---
> > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > index f25f708cd2a7..f0e6913c5cc1 100755
> > --
> Does this work for you:
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index f25f708cd2a7..f0e6913c5cc1 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 10:53 +0200, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am now getting python errors when using --root with checkpatch.pl
> and not being inside the linux repository.
>
> $ ./linux-next/scripts/checkpatch.pl --root=/usr/src/linux-next
> --strict -f linux-next/Makefile
> FAIL: /usr
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:49 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:37 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:32 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:23 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:22 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:37 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:32 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:23 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:22 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I got the following message from checkpa
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:32 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:23 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:22 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I got the following message from checkpatch:
> > >
> > > ===
> > > $ scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > 0001
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:23 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:22 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I got the following message from checkpatch:
> >
> > ===
> > $ scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > 0001-netfilter-nf_log-don-t-hold-nf_log_mutex-during-user.patch
> > WARNING: 'c
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 17:22 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I got the following message from checkpatch:
>
> ===
> $ scripts/checkpatch.pl
> 0001-netfilter-nf_log-don-t-hold-nf_log_mutex-during-user.patch
> WARNING: 'calle' may be misspelled - perhaps 'called'?
> #15:
> Fixes: 266d07cb1c
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 03:56:19PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:23 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > > Hi Joe,
> > > >
> > > > Can I please b
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:23 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Hi Joe,
> > >
> > > Can I please bother you with a maintainer question. I know everyone is
> > > super bus
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Can I please bother you with a maintainer question. I know everyone is
> > super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> > doing
On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Can I please bother you with a maintainer question. I know everyone is
> super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
> and
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:17:53 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 15:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:53:54 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > Greg KH doesn't like this test so exclude the staging directory
> > > from the implied --strict only test unless --
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 15:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:53:54 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > Greg KH doesn't like this test so exclude the staging directory
> > from the implied --strict only test unless --strict is actually
> > used on the command-line.
> >
>
> "doesn'
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:53:54 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> Greg KH doesn't like this test so exclude the staging directory
> from the implied --strict only test unless --strict is actually
> used on the command-line.
>
"doesn't like" is rather vague. What is the objection, specifically?
Also, an
On Donnerstag, 21. April 2016 12:41:37 CET Joe Perches wrote:
> It's somewhat common and in general a defect for c90 keywords to
> not start on a tabstop.
>
> Add a test for this condition and warn when it occurs.
This seems to create some new false positives:
WARNING: Statements should star
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 15:13 +0100, Rolf Evers-Fischer wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've just checked the file drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_omap.c, using
> > checkpatch.pl, but I forgot the '-f' option (for file).
> >
> > Surprisingly the checkpatch script repo
On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 15:13 +0100, Rolf Evers-Fischer wrote:
> Hello,
> I've just checked the file drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_omap.c, using
> checkpatch.pl, but I forgot the '-f' option (for file).
>
> Surprisingly the checkpatch script reported a misspelling:
>
> "WARNING: 'additionaly' may b
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:29:18AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> Hello.
>
> > > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> > > st
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Hi,
Hello.
> > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> > staging tree checkpatch emits
> >
> > --
> > visorchipset.c
> > --
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> staging tree checkpatch emits
>
> --
> visorchipset.c
> --
> WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static cons
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 23:01 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Perl is odd enough already adding more non-capture groups
> > when the arguments are clearly specified is harder to read.
>
> How do you think about to reformat the affected alternations?
> Will it become appropriate to give each elem
> Perl is odd enough already adding more non-capture groups
> when the arguments are clearly specified is harder to read.
How do you think about to reformat the affected alternations?
Will it become appropriate to give each element a separate line there?
Regards,
Markus
On Sat, 2017-03-18 at 13:15 +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear checkpatch developers,
>
>
> The coreboot project started using checkpatch.pl, and now some effort
> is going into fixing issues pointed out by `checkpatch.pl`.
>
> The file `src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c` in coreboot contains the code below.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:19:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 10:01 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Checkpatch may be giving a false positive of type CONST_STRUCT when
> > parsing files in drivers/staging/comedi/drivers.
> >
> > $ pwd
> > build/kernel/linux-trees/gregKH/s
On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 10:01 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Checkpatch may be giving a false positive of type CONST_STRUCT when
> parsing files in drivers/staging/comedi/drivers.
>
> $ pwd
> build/kernel/linux-trees/gregKH/staging/
>
> $ cd drivers/staging/comedi/drivers
>
> $ checkpatch --ters
On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 09:30 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> We still have a lot of old addresses for the FSF in the kernel.
> willy@harry:~/kernel/idr$ git grep '675 Mass' |wc -l
> 1502
> willy@harry:~/kernel/idr$ git grep '59 Temple' |wc -l
> 2825
> willy@harry:~/kernel/idr$ git grep '51 Franklin'
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Use get_maintainer to check the status of individual files.
> > If "obsolete", suggest leaving the files alone.
>
> Will another software system like the "kbuild test robot"
> need any more fine-tuning for this change?
It only works on files in
> Use get_maintainer to check the status of individual files.
> If "obsolete", suggest leaving the files alone.
Will another software system like the "kbuild test robot"
need any more fine-tuning for this change?
Regards,
Markus
On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 13:26 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've run across what I think is a false positive for checkpatch's
> UNNECESSARY_ELSE check. The code that triggers it is in the
> tegra_sor_probe() function in drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c. For
> reference, here's the code:
>
>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 13:59 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -3000,7 +3000,7 @@ sub process {
> >
> > $realline_next = $line_nr_next;
> >
On 04/12/2016 10:49 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 13:59 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
@@ -3000,7 +3000,7 @@ sub process {
$realline_next = $line_nr_next;
if (defined $rea
> On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 13:59 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -3000,7 +3000,7 @@ sub process {
>
> $realline_next = $line_nr_next;
> if (defined $realline_next &&
>
On 04/12/2016 05:59 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:09:42PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 14:51 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
On 03/31/2016 12:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 08:01 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
The below looks like normal cod
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:09:42PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 14:51 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On 03/31/2016 12:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 08:01 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The below looks like normal code but the last e
On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 14:51 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 08:01 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > >
> > > The below looks like normal code but the last export symbol gets the
> > > warning,
> > >
> > >
> > > WARNING:EXPORT_S
On 03/31/2016 12:21 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 08:01 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
The below looks like normal code but the last export symbol gets the
warning,
WARNING:EXPORT_SYMBOL: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follw its
function/variable
#16: FILE: kernel/acct.c:70
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 08:01 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> The below looks like normal code but the last export symbol gets the
> warning,
>
>
> WARNING:EXPORT_SYMBOL: EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follw its
> function/variable
> #16: FILE: kernel/acct.c:70:
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(test_export
On Feb 15, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 21:45 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 20:57 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> [etc...]
>
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 21:45 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 20:57 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > [etc...]
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, that's a defect of some type.
> > >
> >
On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 20:57 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> [etc...]
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's a defect of some type.
>>
>> Also while I have your attention, here's another one:
>>
>> struct cfs_percp
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 20:57 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > [etc...]
> >
> > Yeah, that's a defect of some type.
>
> Also while I have your attention, here's another one:
>
> struct cfs_percpt_lock *
> cfs_percpt_lock_alloc(struct cfs_cpt_table *cp
On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> [etc...]
>
> Yeah, that's a defect of some type.
Also while I have your attention, here's another one:
struct cfs_percpt_lock *
cfs_percpt_lock_alloc(struct cfs_cpt_table *cptab)
{
struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl;
spinlock_t
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 18:49 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> As I am going over Lustre to clean up the code style, I noticed this bunch
> below.
>
> Those all are function definitions, though I guess it might have been
> foiled by
> return type on the previous line?
> Now s
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 18:15 -0800, Shawn N wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The checkpatch.pl GIT_COMMIT_ID rule appears to be designed to enforce
> a minimum description when citing patches: 'commit <12+ chars of sha1>
> (\"\")'. One (unintended?) consequence of this rule is
> that unmodified 'cherry picked f
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:10 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 04:00 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > The page_owner mechanism stores gfp_flags of an allocation and stack trace
> > that lead to it. During page migration, the original information is
> > essentially replaced by the allocatio
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:58:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 16:43 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:35:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > #31:
> > > > arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c | 198
> > > > ++---
> >
On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 16:43 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:35:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > #31:
> > > arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c | 198
> > > ++---
>
> I guess those are in the limbo land between the end of message and
>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:35:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > #31:
> > arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c | 198
> > ++---
I guess those are in the limbo land between the end of message and
beginning of the patch itself. Perhaps the test should at least stop a
On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 16:25 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Andy/Joe,
>
> I got a warning today for my cover-letter, and it looked like a false
> positive. Please have a look, based of v4.2-rc2.
> ---
> -cover-letter.patch
> ---
> WARNING: Possible unwra
On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 09:43 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:11:38PM +0530, Purushothaman, Vijay A wrote:
> >> Minor nitpick: typo in patch title
> >
> > Dang. I already fixed a typo there before sending this out, but turns
> > ou
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 13:35 +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Hi Marek
> we have come across a checkpatch false-positive:
[]
> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct batadv_bla_claim_dst) != 6);
> CHECK: No space is necessary after a cast
> #440: FILE: main.c:440:
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(stru
Joe Perches writes:
> On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >> I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to
>> >> make it difficult to us
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:
> >
> > --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files
> > using -f or --f
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 01:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Maybe some help/warning text like:
> >
> > --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files
> > using -f or --file out
Am 11.02.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> Maybe some help/warning text like:
>>
>> --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files
>> using -f or --file outside of
>> dri
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:43:03PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> Maybe some help/warning text like:
>
> --forceWithout --force, checkpatch will not scan files
> using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/...
> Do not
On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:24 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2015-02-11 12:20:25, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches
On Wed 2015-02-11 12:20:25, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
