On 25/04/11 16:02, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 15:36 +1000, Graeme Russ wrote: >> There has been a bit of discussion lately on the U-Boot mailing list >> regarding the use of checkpatch for U-Boot patches (see >> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090954.html) >> >> U-Boot uses the Linux coding style and checkpatch is therefore a very good >> tool for us to use to check style compliance. However, checkpatch has a few >> Linux specific checks which throw up false warnings for U-Boot patches like: >> >> WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strto* >> WARNING: Use #include <linux/$file> instead of <asm/$file> >> >> Also, checkpatch seems to be checking not only patched lines, but context >> lines as well. There is a policy for U-Boot patches to not intermix >> whitespace / code cleanup changes and functional changes in in the same >> patch. So to achieve zero warnings and errors, the submitter is forced to >> create an additional code-cleanup patch in addition to the functionality >> patch. The code cleanup can end up being significantly larger than the >> functionality change which discourages casual submitters. >> >> So I have a pretty simple question to ask of LKML - Will checkpatch patches >> to create a 'U-Boot' command-line option to explicitly filter out Linux >> specific warnings and errors ever be accepted into checkpatch, or will we >> be required to create and maintain a U-Boot specific version? >> >> P.S. If you could please keep the U-Boot mailing list Cc'd, that would be >> appreciated > > Hi Graeme. > > Perhaps some sort of .checkpatch.conf file > could be introduced which could be linked to > specific types of errors/warnings/checks > that should be reported or ignored. > > checkpatch has central routines to emit messages. > > sub ERROR { > if (report("ERROR: $_[0]\n")) { > our $clean = 0; > our $cnt_error++; > } > } > sub WARN { > if (report("WARNING: $_[0]\n")) { > our $clean = 0; > our $cnt_warn++; > } > } > sub CHK { > if ($check && report("CHECK: $_[0]\n")) { > our $clean = 0; > our $cnt_chk++; > } > } > > For instance, warnings could be changed to include > a new unique identifier for each message. > > from > WARN("Signed-off-by: is the preferred form\n" . > $herecurr); > to > WARN($WARN_SIGN_OFF, > "Signed-off-by: is the preferred form\n" . > $herecurr); > > and the ERROR/WARN/CHK routines could be extended to use > entries in the .conf file to enable/disable each message. > > uboot could then use an appropriate .conf file. >
I like this - And checkpatch.pl could set the default options for 'Linux flavour' so Linux would not need a .conf file :) BUT - The question still remains - Will patches for obviously non-Linux related 'features' of checkpatch be welcomed and incorporated into checkpatch? Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
