On Mon, 05 Mar 2018, Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:10:21PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> > I'd recommend not making checkpatch ever fail CI, but at most warning.
>> Agreed. But we want the automated warnings on the list, neutrally from a
>> bot instead of a developer spending time nitpicking this stuff. And the
>> committers should pay attention before pushing.
> We are never failing CI because of it. We are sending it simply as a
> warning (if there's anything to report).
>> Really, everyone should be running checkpatch themselves locally before
>> sending patches, ignoring the irrelevant warnings with good taste...
>> > Plus silence the ones we obviously think are silly (or currently
>> > inconsistent in our code).
>> > I think the ingore list is probably best kept within maintainer-tools
>> > itself, that way we at least have visibility into it from committers.
>> Agreed, but as I wrote in  we need to add checkpatch profiles or
>> config or something, because I want *all* the warnings when I run it
>> locally. And if we decide to, say, enforce kernel types in i915 but
>> drm-misc decides otherwise, that's also another config.
>>  email@example.com">http://firstname.lastname@example.org
> Good. CI is using dim and I want too keep it that way. I prefer a cmd
> line switch over .dimrc. Keeping track of an additional file for the
> builder would be an annoyance.
To follow-up, I sent some patches to implement this .
PS. The Mail Archive seems to be pretty slow at times, please use the
message-id if you can't find them.
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel-gfx mailing list