On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:35 -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On 4/14/21 9:29 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:17 -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > > Perhaps (like the -W options for GCC) there > > > could be a way to specify in a Makefile which checkpatch > > > messages are reported/not reported? I don't claim that's > > > a good suggestion, but if I could optionally indicate > > > somewhere that "two consecutive blank lines is OK for > > > Greybus" (one example that comes to mind) I might do so. > > > > checkpatch already has --ignore=<list> and --types=<list> > > for the various classes of messages it emits. > > > > see: $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --list-types --verbose > > > > Dwaipayan Ray (cc'd) is supposedly working on expanding > > the verbose descriptions of each type. > > > > That's awesome, I wasn't aware of that. > > Any suggestions on a standardized way to say "in this > subtree, please provide these arguments to checkpatch.pl"? > > I can probably stick it in a README file or something, > but is there an existing best practice? There is no standardized mechanism for this checkpatch use. Putting something in a staging README is in general a good way for it to _not_ be read by people doing 'my first kernel patch'. I still think emitting a message for overly long identifiers could be a decent checkpatch test. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1518801207.13169.15.camel@xxxxxxxxxxx/ _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|