On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:24 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2015-02-11 12:20:25, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > >> I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to > > > >> make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside > > > >> of drivers/staging. > > > >> o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file > > > >> option for drivers/staging/ > > > >> o Add an undocumented --force command line option > > > > Sure. We could try that. I once sent a patch to make -f generate a > > > > warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok. > > > >> o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging [] > > > FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic. > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415 [] > > This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion > > in that thread. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427 > > > > I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable > > to Pavel and Kalle. > Undocumented options are evil... You can add warning about not wasting > people's time in --force documentation... Yeah, I had added --force to the help text then removed it before sending, so I suppose adding a warning there is OK too. Nobody reads the --help text anyway. Dan/Andrew/Greg? You got a preference? Maybe some help/warning text like: --force Without --force, checkpatch will not scan files using -f or --file outside of drivers/staging/... Do not use this option merely to create potential patches that are uncompiled or untested. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
