On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:10:21PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. We are never failing CI because of it. We are sending it simply as a warning (if there's anything to report). > 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 Good. CI is using dim and I want too keep it that way. I prefer a cmd line switch over .dimrc. Keeping track of an additional file for the builder would be an annoyance. - Arek _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
