On Mon, 05 Mar 2018, Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. To follow-up, I sent some patches to implement this [1]. BR, Jani. PS. The Mail Archive seems to be pretty slow at times, please use the message-id if you can't find them. [1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/20180313113010.13078-1-jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
