On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 20:15 Joe Perches, <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-01-13 at 16:04 +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > Checkpatch sometimes has false positives. This makes it less useful for > > automatic usage: tools like b4 [0] can run checkpatch on all of your > > patches and give you a quick overview. When iterating on a branch, it's > > tiresome to manually re-check that any errors are known false positives. > > If you do this, and perhaps it's not particularly necessary at all, > I suggest using something like the message-id or branch name for an > ignored types file and have the script auto-write the found types > into that file. Do you mean to say the problem is better solved in b4 instead of checkpatch? I think that's a downgrade from the Checkpatch-args approach, because b4 is just one of many many tools that wrap checkpatch. I think it's nice to solve the problem for everyone. Also, having the config in the commit message means it's there for everyone instead of just the patch author. Running checkpatch on other people's patches is not something I have much interest in doing deliberately, but I'm sure there are those who do it. Maybe there are even maintainers who would like to have their -next branch entirely checkpatch-clean if that was an option. Plus I bet there are just cases where it's interesting to know the difference between "this author doesn't care about checkpatch" and "this author disagrees with checkpatch on this patch".
