Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 08:43 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 09:00:18AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 09:36 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> > > 1. Using lockdep_set_novalidate_class() for anything other >> > > than device->mutex will throw checkpatch warnings. Nice. (*) >> > [] >> > > (*) checkpatch.pl is considered mostly harmful round here, too, >> > > but that's another rant.... >> > >> > How so? >> >> Short story is that it barfs all over the slightly non-standard >> coding style used in XFS. > [] >> This sort of stuff is just lowest-common-denominator noise - great >> for new code and/or inexperienced developers, but not for working >> with large bodies of existing code with slightly non-standard >> conventions. > > Completely reasonable. Thanks. > > Do you get many checkpatch submitters for fs/xfs? > > If so, could probably do something about adding > a checkpatch file flag to the directory or equivalent. > > Maybe add something like: > > fs/xfs/.checkpatch > > where the contents turn off most everything I propose a more fine grained and configurable form of this in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/16/343 that also handles sparse and other checkers in a similar way. Thanks, Knut > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
