From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99D26C for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 02:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omzsmtpe03.verizonbusiness.com (omzsmtpe03.verizonbusiness.com [199.249.25.208]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31E1410A for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 02:22:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "Levin, Alexander" To: Joe Perches Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:22:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20160829021055.GA24216@sasha-lappy> References: <1472330452.26978.23.camel@perches.com> <20160828005636.GB19088@sasha-lappy> <1472348579.26978.47.camel@perches.com> <20160828023807.GC19088@sasha-lappy> <1472404557.26978.84.camel@perches.com> <20160828223759.GA12993@sasha-lappy> <1472426452.26978.151.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1472426452.26978.151.camel@perches.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Greg KH , Sasha Levin , LKML Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 07:20:52PM -0400, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 18:37 -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 01:15:57PM -0400, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 22:47 -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote: > > > > Would you agree that by default we shouldn't show anything that's > > > > not an error/defect? > > > Not particularly, no. > > I think that we need to figure out this disagreement first then. My > > claim is that checkpatch's output isn't useful. > [] > > It'll be interesting to hear from these people about their view of > > checkpatch, but IMO when on average there are more issues than commits > > I can suggest two possible causes: > >=20 > > =A01. People are used to ignore checkpatch warnings. > > =A02. People aren't using checkpatch. > >=20 > > Can you really make the claim that this is how checkpatch is supposed > > to be working? >=20 > . =A0I make no particular claims about checkpatch. >=20 > I think checkpatch isn't particularly useful for those > thoroughly inculcated in what style the kernel uses and > is more useful for infrequent or new submitters. >=20 > The long time submitters and key maintainers are already > pretty consistent about coding style. I did the same test for authors of 5-9 commits (just an arbitrary choice of= numbers for "infrequent"), the results there are much worse: 3981 commits,= 7175 issues. The only big subsystem that seems to be forcing checkpatch "correctness" is= mm/, where akpm is fixing up checkpatch issues himself. Otherwise, it look= s like maintainers are not running checkpatch nor are making sure that the = commits they merge in don't have checkpatch issues. > It would be good to examine the specific messages though. What for? The point is that with that amount of issues it's evident that pe= ople don't actually use checkpatch to begin with. We can discuss whether th= e output it produces makes sense all we want, but the fact is that people j= ust don't use it - and I've tried to give my opinion of why I think it happ= ens. --=20 Thanks, Sasha=