On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for > > > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well, > > > the list has grown way too large and could use massive trimming. > > > > I'm in complete agreement. > > > > I also think that checkpatch's ERROR/WARNING/CHECK message naming is > > far too severe and injunctive and could use a renaming to something > > more silly, bug related and less commanding like FLEAS/GNATS/NITS. > I think it is better to be clear. CHECK was never really clear to me, > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have > ERROR or WARNING. NITS is a common word in this context, but not FLEAS > and GNATS, as far as I know. > There could also be a severity level: high medium and low I agree clarity is good. The seriousness with which some beginners take these message types though is troublesome, Maybe prefix various different types of style messages. Something like: ERROR -> CODE_STYLE_DEFECT WARNING -> CODE_STYLE_UNPREFERRED CHECK -> CODE_STYLE_NIT I doubt additional external documentation would help much. Some checkpatch bleats really are errors though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
