Ok, I will test with --ignore options. If it works than might be better to use it.
Maxim. On 05/23/17 15:41, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: > > > From: Bill Fischofer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:22 PM > To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected]> > Cc: Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2] scripts: checkpatch: update to allow > additional exceptions > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lng-odp [mailto:mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Maxim >> Uvarov >> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:07 PM >> To: mailto:[email protected] >> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCHv2] scripts: checkpatch: update to allow >> additional exceptions >> >> Merged! >> >> Maxim. >> >> On 05/04/17 22:33, Bill Fischofer wrote: >>> Update http://checkpatch.pl to avoid issuing warnings for use of externs, >>> volatile, or camelCase. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer <mailto:[email protected]> >>> --- >>> scripts/http://checkpatch.pl | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/scripts/http://checkpatch.pl b/scripts/http://checkpatch.pl >>> index 16316b92..1c27ac60 100755 >>> --- a/scripts/http://checkpatch.pl >>> +++ b/scripts/http://checkpatch.pl >>> @@ -4273,7 +4273,7 @@ sub process { >>> >> $camelcase_file_seeded = 1; >>> } >>> } >>> - if (!defined >> $camelcase{$word}) { >>> + if (!defined >> $camelcase{$word} && 0) { > > First, I think it's not good to edit the http://checkpatch.pl itself. We > should just use the config file to document what checks are ignored. Also > these direct edits are lost when we upgrade to new checkpatch version. > > Also, I think camel case check is useful. We are forced to use camel case > sometimes due to external lib (openSSL) API, but those are exceptions and > should be handled as such. Now this edit opens door for every patch to > contain camel case, also when there's no reason to do so. We need reviewers > to check for it now, which is a waste. > > So, I'd suggest to revert this. > > The camel case rule we want is very simple: you may use camel case symbols > but you may not define any new ones. I don't believe checkpatch is set up to > support that rule, however. Is there a way of doing this to your knowledge? > > [petri] > Just the way we have done it so far: checkpatch warns on all camel cases and > reviewers pass only those that have legitimate reasoning (== external lib > usage) . > > -Petri > > > >
