On Mon, 05 Mar 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd recommend not making checkpatch ever fail CI, but at most warning. Agreed. But we want the automated warnings on the list, neutrally from a bot instead of a developer spending time nitpicking this stuff. And the committers should pay attention before pushing. Really, everyone should be running checkpatch themselves locally before sending patches, ignoring the irrelevant warnings with good taste... > Plus silence the ones we obviously think are silly (or currently > inconsistent in our code). > > I think the ingore list is probably best kept within maintainer-tools > itself, that way we at least have visibility into it from committers. Agreed, but as I wrote in [1] we need to add checkpatch profiles or config or something, because I want *all* the warnings when I run it locally. And if we decide to, say, enforce kernel types in i915 but drm-misc decides otherwise, that's also another config. BR, Jani. [1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/87zi3qtq9f.fsf@xxxxxxxxx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
