From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
Add no-warning option to the checkpatch script.
Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
---
--- linux-2.6.37-rc6-orig/scripts/checkpatch.pl 2010-12-16 02:24:48.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.37-rc6/scripts/checkpatch.pl 2010-12-18 10:31:11.000000000 +0100
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ my $V = '0.31';
use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
my $quiet = 0;
+my $chk_warn = 1;
my $tree = 1;
my $chk_signoff = 1;
my $chk_patch = 1;
@@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ Version: $V
Options:
-q, --quiet quiet
+ --no-warning do not report warnings
--no-tree run without a kernel tree
--no-signoff do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
--patch treat FILE as patchfile (default)
@@ -65,6 +67,7 @@ EOM
GetOptions(
'q|quiet+' => \$quiet,
+ 'warning!' => \$chk_warn,
'tree!' => \$tree,
'signoff!' => \$chk_signoff,
'patch!' => \$chk_patch,
@@ -1108,7 +1111,7 @@ sub ERROR {
}
}
sub WARN {
- if (report("WARNING: $_[0]\n")) {
+ if ($chk_warn && report("WARNING: $_[0]\n")) {
our $clean = 0;
our $cnt_warn++;
}
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 10:28 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
> Add no-warning option to the checkpatch script.
> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
Hello Marco.
I don't have much of an opinion on this.
I don't actually use checkpatch much.
Why do you think it's useful?
It's Andy's code, I just contribute a few
possible additions here and there.
cheers, Joe
2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 10:28 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>> Add no-warning option to the checkpatch script.
>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>
> Hello Marco.
>
> I don't have much of an opinion on this.
> I don't actually use checkpatch much.
> Why do you think it's useful?
To "debug" a patch from style point of view, I think it's useful to
fix before the errors and then the warnings. So this option it's
useful as a "filter". However, I added you in cc: because of a reply
to my first patch that indicated you as a person interested in this
scope.
Marco
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 09:37 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> 2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> > Why do you think it's useful?
> To "debug" a patch from style point of view, I think it's useful to
> fix before the errors and then the warnings. So this option it's
> useful as a "filter". However, I added you in cc: because of a reply
> to my first patch that indicated you as a person interested in this
> scope.
Perhaps then it'd be better to filter/enable/disable
the 3 current categories of messages.
Maybe something like this:
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index e3c7fc0..467be6f 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ my $tst_only;
my $emacs = 0;
my $terse = 0;
my $file = 0;
-my $check = 0;
+my $emit_error = 1;
+my $emit_warn = 1;
+my $emit_chk = 0;
my $summary = 1;
my $mailback = 0;
my $summary_file = 0;
@@ -45,7 +47,9 @@ Options:
--emacs emacs compile window format
--terse one line per report
-f, --file treat FILE as regular source file
- --subjective, --strict enable more subjective tests
+ --errors print the errors found (default: 1=on, 0=off)
+ --warnings print the warnings found (default: 1=on, 0=off)
+ --subjective, --strict print the subjective defects found (default: 0=off)
--root=PATH PATH to the kernel tree root
--no-summary suppress the per-file summary
--mailback only produce a report in case of warnings/errors
@@ -71,8 +75,10 @@ GetOptions(
'emacs!' => \$emacs,
'terse!' => \$terse,
'f|file!' => \$file,
- 'subjective!' => \$check,
- 'strict!' => \$check,
+ 'errors!' => \$emit_error,
+ 'warnings!' => \$emit_warn,
+ 'subjective!' => \$emit_chk,
+ 'strict!' => \$emit_chk,
'root=s' => \$root,
'summary!' => \$summary,
'mailback!' => \$mailback,
@@ -1102,19 +1108,19 @@ sub report_dump {
our @report;
}
sub ERROR {
- if (report("ERROR: $_[0]\n")) {
+ if ($emit_error && report("ERROR: $_[0]\n")) {
our $clean = 0;
our $cnt_error++;
}
}
sub WARN {
- if (report("WARNING: $_[0]\n")) {
+ if ($emit_warn && report("WARNING: $_[0]\n")) {
our $clean = 0;
our $cnt_warn++;
}
}
sub CHK {
- if ($check && report("CHECK: $_[0]\n")) {
+ if ($emit_chk && report("CHECK: $_[0]\n")) {
our $clean = 0;
our $cnt_chk++;
}
@@ -2922,9 +2928,11 @@ sub process {
print report_dump();
if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
print "$filename " if ($summary_file);
- print "total: $cnt_error errors, $cnt_warn warnings, " .
- (($check)? "$cnt_chk checks, " : "") .
- "$cnt_lines lines checked\n";
+ print "total:" .
+ (($emit_error) ? " $cnt_error errors," : "") .
+ (($emit_warn) ? " $cnt_warn warnings," : "") .
+ (($emit_chk) ? " $cnt_chk checks," : "") .
+ " $cnt_lines lines checked\n";
print "\n" if ($quiet == 0);
}
2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 09:37 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> 2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
>> > Why do you think it's useful?
>> To "debug" a patch from style point of view, I think it's useful to
>> fix before the errors and then the warnings. So this option it's
>> useful as a "filter". However, I added you in cc: because of a reply
>> to my first patch that indicated you as a person interested in this
>> scope.
>
> Perhaps then it'd be better to filter/enable/disable
> the 3 current categories of messages.
>
> Maybe something like this:
Yeah, very good. Will it be inserted in mainline?
Marco
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 12:48 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> 2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 09:37 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> >> 2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> >> > Why do you think it's useful?
> >> To "debug" a patch from style point of view, I think it's useful to
> >> fix before the errors and then the warnings. So this option it's
> >> useful as a "filter". However, I added you in cc: because of a reply
> >> to my first patch that indicated you as a person interested in this
> >> scope.
> > Perhaps then it'd be better to filter/enable/disable
> > the 3 current categories of messages.
> > Maybe something like this:
> Yeah, very good. Will it be inserted in mainline?
Dunno. Maybe if Andy thinks it worthwhile.
He takes his time about this sort of thing.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:06:10AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 12:48 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> > 2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> > > On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 09:37 +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> > >> 2010/12/20 Joe Perches <[email protected]>:
> > >> > Why do you think it's useful?
> > >> To "debug" a patch from style point of view, I think it's useful to
> > >> fix before the errors and then the warnings. So this option it's
> > >> useful as a "filter". However, I added you in cc: because of a reply
> > >> to my first patch that indicated you as a person interested in this
> > >> scope.
> > > Perhaps then it'd be better to filter/enable/disable
> > > the 3 current categories of messages.
> > > Maybe something like this:
> > Yeah, very good. Will it be inserted in mainline?
>
> Dunno. Maybe if Andy thinks it worthwhile.
> He takes his time about this sort of thing.
At a quick skim that seems a more comprehensive approach. I've been lax
as always picking things up but with the quiet time coming I hope to
hoover up the left overs and push them out.
Thanks.
-apw