On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > Porting a patch > > > forward should have no issues either as checkpatch.pl has been complaining > > > of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now. > > > > And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on > > checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are > > tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And > > yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it. > > > > P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to > > remove. > > I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset. Yes, I wrote it before seeing another series. > What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w") > in checkpatch.pl, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel. > Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a > little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas > %pO likely has never existed. > > So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check > here, too, if you like. Consistency tells me that the warning->error transformation in checkpatch.pl belongs this series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
