Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] checkpatch/Codingstyle and trivial patch spam

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Greg KH wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:23:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 13:54 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:24:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 19:03 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > "Do
> > > > > not mass-reformat existing code, even if it doesn't follow these
> > > > > guidelines; doing so creates noise in version control history and makes
> > > > > patches fail to apply."
> > > > Or maybe add something like a new entry for what types of changes
> > > > are acceptable with a default of "none"
> > > > C:	Whitespace and Style
> > > Ick, no, we have way too many things in the MAINTAINERS file as it is...
> >
> > So what would use propose instead?
> >
> > I think the primary issue is people using "scripts/checkpatch.pl -f"
> >
> > I think that shouldn't be done without an understanding of when
> > it is useful and when it is not useful to use that -f option.
>
> I agree, people get annoyed by this.  I personally think that anyone who
> does get annoyed by it should just ignore them, or fix up the code to
> not get triggered by the reports.
>
> But who am I to complain :)
>
> > I have proposed adding an undocumented --force option to checkpatch
> > which would disallow -f unless --force is also used.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/11/433
> >
> > Does anyone object to this?

The --force is only required for non-staging code?  If it is required for
staging code, then we will have to document it in the outreachy tutorial,
and then all the (non-outreachy) newbies who look at the tutorial will
know about it...

julia