On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 01:30:10PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Set max line length to 100. I don't want to silence the LONG_LINE >> warning altogether, and I'd still prefer to keep lines under 80 >> characters, but I also don't want to see all the noise, and nor do I >> want to see silly code trying to arbitrarily squeeze under 80 when it >> doesn't make sense. 100 is a nice arbitrary round number... I hope >> review catches silly stuff regardless. Fingers crossed. >> >> BIT_MACRO. We have (1 << N) all over the place. I hope to switch to >> BIT() macro eventually, but this documents current use. >> >> PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES. We also have uint(8|16|32|64)_t all over the >> place. I also hope to move towards kernel types, but this documents >> current use. >> >> SPLIT_STRING, LONG_LINE_STRING. Don't nag about strings split to many >> lines, but also don't nag about strings not split. >> >> There's plenty more that could be tweaked, but let's start with >> something to improve the S/N ratio of the automated CI checkpatch >> reports. Now that we have --show-types included in the output, we can >> more easily discuss the ignores on a case-by-case basis. >> >> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> dim | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/dim b/dim >> index 4ba1c7ff490a..9fa6d9cd855b 100755 >> --- a/dim >> +++ b/dim >> @@ -1390,7 +1390,7 @@ function checkpatch_commit >> profile_options="" >> ;; >> drm-intel) >> - profile_options="" >> + profile_options="--max-line-length=100 --ignore=BIT_MACRO,PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES,SPLIT_STRING,LONG_LINE_STRING" > > I've scrolled a bit through checkpatch complaines with this, and I think > it looks a lot more reasonable. There's also a huge pile of stuff that we > should probably have fixed when the patches landed, so CI'ing this looks > good. > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > Aside: Should we encourage checkpatch patches to clean this up, with the > note that they must use the drm-intel profile and the caveat that we might > want to add more stuff to our ignore list instead of taking the patches? Overall I just think the checkpatch patches crop up enough without encouragement. IMO let's see how this rolls in CI first and proceed from there. The two warnings that I do think would most benefit from mass change are BIT_MACRO and PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES. People tend to look around them and cargo cult. A little bit of git grep on the C99 types seems to back this up; their use multiplies and prospers in some files, while is neglible in others. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
