lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: checkkpatch (in)sanity ?
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:15:57AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 22:47 -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote:
> > > > By default you should only get the most critical warnings we have in the
> > > > kernel like missing S-O-B or corrupt patch.
> > > I don't think so, but if you do, add a filter for ERROR only.
> > I could, but the problem is the people who see the default output as "holy".
>
> Personally, I think the "my first kernel patch" beginners were
> overly encouraged to produce these checkpatch whitespace type
> changes by a couple things:
>
> o Greg KH's TuxRadar article back in 2010
> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/newbies-guide-hacking-linux-kernel
> o The Eudyptula Challenge
>  http://eudyptula-challenge.org/
>
> I don't know if the Eudyptula scripts are specific to
> drivers/staging and most of those beginners haven't read his
> email from 2015 that essentially says "don't do that" on
> anything other than drivers/staging.

I have been assured that Eudyptula says to stick only with
drivers/staging/ If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know and I
will work to resolve that.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:0.128 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site