On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote: > 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, It's not necessarily the case that changing the error type will change the behavior of the persons in question. > 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. Maybe just downgrade more things? Perhaps SUGGESTION would be more clear than CHECK? julia
