On 09/14/2016 08:33 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 08:16:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 08:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 19:56 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> This will certainly help to reduce the noise. On the other hand I remember 
>>>> Linus
>>>> saying something along the line that he does not like the -f parameter 
>>>> (and he
>>>> prefers to set this automatically). So while I like the approach I am not 
>>>> happy
>>>> enough to ack right now - still looking for a better alternative :-/
>>> Linus likely hasn't used checkpatch in a decade or so.
>>> Taste and judgment can't be scripted anyway.
>>> Let me know if you find an alternative.
>> You know what. 
>> with some additional writing like 
>> "Existing code outside staging is not supposed to be "fixed" to match 
>> checkpatch.
>> Please do not send checkpatch initiated patches for those files"
>> near the newly created warn
> That's not true, I _WANT_ checkpatch cleanups for the portion of the
> kernel I maintain.  It keeps the code correct, up to date, easier to
> maintain, and in doing so, we have found real bugs over time.
> So don't make a blanket statement like that please.  And I'd strongly
> suggest you revisit your feelings about this for code you maintain,
> unless you want it to bitrot and not get any new contributions or
> contributors :)
> thanks,
> greg k-h

After some days of time going by I have to agree with you. It has never 
been a checkpatch patch that bothered me, instead only some (and rare) fruitless
discussions and ignorance of feedback of very few people made me "unhappy".
Certainly nothing where a "stiff-armed" checkpatch would help.

The other question might be still an interesting topic: The process of how to 
update CodingStyle and how detailed Codingstyle.


Reply via email to