The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
a paragraph.
But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
.$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
test.
Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
CC: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>
CC: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index c883ec55654f..e255f0423cca 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2931,7 +2931,8 @@ sub process {
}
if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
- "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
+ "please write a paragraph (" .$min_conf_desc_length . " lines)" .
+ " that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
}
#print "is_start<$is_start> is_end<$is_end> length<$length>\n";
}
--
2.19.1
On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 10:35 +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
> entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
> for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
> a paragraph.
>
> But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
> .$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
>
> Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
> stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
> warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
> one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
> test.
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -2931,7 +2931,8 @@ sub process {
> }
> if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
> WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
> - "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
> + "please write a paragraph (" .$min_conf_desc_length . " lines)" .
could say "(at least $min_conf_desc_length lines)"
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:44:36AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 10:35 +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
> > entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
> > for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
> > a paragraph.
> >
> > But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
> > .$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
> >
> > Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
> > stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
> > warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
> > one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
> > test.
> []
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -2931,7 +2931,8 @@ sub process {
> > }
> > if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
> > WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
> > - "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
> > + "please write a paragraph (" .$min_conf_desc_length . " lines)" .
>
> could say "(at least $min_conf_desc_length lines)"
The original is better description in the semantic sense. We want them
to describe it well. We assume they haven't because it is short. We
don't want them to make it long, we want them to confirm it is fully
described.
You arn't trying to make people make these warnings away, they should
just be checking they have met the criteria in the warning. If they
have they can ignore the warning and be happy, they don't have to add
two more lines.
To cover both cases perhaps:
"please ensure that this config symbols is described fully (less than
$min_conf_desc_length lines is quite brief)"
-apw
On 19/12/2018 14:29, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 11:59 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:44:36AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> To cover both cases perhaps:
>>
>> "please ensure that this config symbols is described fully (less than
>> $min_conf_desc_length lines is quite brief)"
>
> This is one of those checkpatch bleats I never
> really thought was appropriate as some or many
> Kconfig symbols are fully descriptive in even
> with only a single line.
>
> Also, it seems you are arguing for a checkpatch
> --verbose-help output style rather than the
> intentionally terse single line output that the
> script produces today.
If I have to use --verbose, to understand that the warning is about me
writing 3 lines when the script expects 4, I don't think it's
particularly user friendly.
Let's write "Expected 4+ lines" or something equally clear.
It will fit in a row and get the job done.
> That is something Al Viro once suggested in this thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/775901/
>
> On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 05:08 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 08:52:50PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> checkpatch messages are single line.
>>
>> Too bad... Incidentally, being able to get more detailed explanation of
>> a warning might be a serious improvement, especially if it contains
>> the rationale. Hell, something like TeX handling of errors might be
>> a good idea - warning printed, offered actions include 'give more help',
>> 'continue', 'exit', 'from now on suppress this kind of warning', 'from
>> now on just dump this kind of warning into log and keep going', 'from
>> now on dump all warnings into log and keep going'.
It's all good in general, but here the word "paragraph" is being abused,
in the sense that it has been given an arbitrary meaning of "4 lines".
And the warning is even worse because it doesn't even acknowledge that I
wrote something, even if it's a meager 1 or 2 lines.
Which is even more confusing.
As user, if I'm running checkpatch.pl and I get a warning, I should
spend my time trying to decide if/how to fix it, not re-invoking it with
extra options or reading its sources.
--
igor
On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 11:59 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:44:36AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 10:35 +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > > The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
> > > entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
> > > for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
> > > a paragraph.
> > >
> > > But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
> > > .$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
> > >
> > > Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
> > > stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
> > > warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
> > > one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
> > > test.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> > > @@ -2931,7 +2931,8 @@ sub process {
> > > }
> > > if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
> > > WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
> > > - "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
> > > + "please write a paragraph (" .$min_conf_desc_length . " lines)" .
> >
> > could say "(at least $min_conf_desc_length lines)"
>
> The original is better description in the semantic sense. We want them
> to describe it well. We assume they haven't because it is short. We
> don't want them to make it long, we want them to confirm it is fully
> described.
>
> You arn't trying to make people make these warnings away, they should
> just be checking they have met the criteria in the warning. If they
> have they can ignore the warning and be happy, they don't have to add
> two more lines.
>
> To cover both cases perhaps:
>
> "please ensure that this config symbols is described fully (less than
> $min_conf_desc_length lines is quite brief)"
This is one of those checkpatch bleats I never
really thought was appropriate as some or many
Kconfig symbols are fully descriptive in even
with only a single line.
Also, it seems you are arguing for a checkpatch
--verbose-help output style rather than the
intentionally terse single line output that the
script produces today.
That is something Al Viro once suggested in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/775901/
On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 05:08 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 08:52:50PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > checkpatch messages are single line.
>
> Too bad... Incidentally, being able to get more detailed explanation of
> a warning might be a serious improvement, especially if it contains
> the rationale. Hell, something like TeX handling of errors might be
> a good idea - warning printed, offered actions include 'give more help',
> 'continue', 'exit', 'from now on suppress this kind of warning', 'from
> now on just dump this kind of warning into log and keep going', 'from
> now on dump all warnings into log and keep going'.
The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
a paragraph.
But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
.$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
test.
Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
CC: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>
CC: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index c883ec55654f..33568d7e28d1 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2931,7 +2931,7 @@ sub process {
}
if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
- "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
+ "expecting a 'help' section of " .$min_conf_desc_length . "+ lines\n" . $herecurr);
}
#print "is_start<$is_start> is_end<$is_end> length<$length>\n";
}
--
2.19.1
On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 20:55 +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
> entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
> for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
> a paragraph.
>
> But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
> .$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
>
> Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
> stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
> warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
> one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
> test.
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -2931,7 +2931,7 @@ sub process {
> }
> if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
> WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
> - "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
> + "expecting a 'help' section of " .$min_conf_desc_length . "+ lines\n" . $herecurr);
this could also be written without the concatenations
"expecting a 'help' section of $min_conf_desc_length or more lines\n" . $herecurr);
or maybe
"please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully ($min_conf_desc_length or more lines)\n" . $herecurr);
Andi?
You are the originator of this text.
Do you have an opinion?
> "expecting a 'help' section of $min_conf_desc_length or more lines\n" . $herecurr);
> or maybe
> "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully ($min_conf_desc_length or more lines)\n" . $herecurr);
>
> Andi?
> You are the originator of this text.
> Do you have an opinion?
Either change is fine for me.
-Andi
>
>
The checkpatch.pl script complains when the help section of a Kconfig
entry is too short, but it doesn't really explain what it is looking
for. Instead, it gives a generic warning that one should consider writing
a paragraph.
But what it *really* checks is that the help section is at least
.$min_conf_desc_length lines long.
Since the definition of what is a paragraph is not really carved in
stone (and actually the primary descriptions is "5 sentences"), make the
warning less ambiguous by expliciting the actual test condition, so that
one doesn't have to read checkpatch.pl sources, to figure out the actual
test.
Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <[email protected]>
CC: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>
CC: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
CC: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index c883ec55654f..818ddada28b5 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2931,7 +2931,7 @@ sub process {
}
if ($is_start && $is_end && $length < $min_conf_desc_length) {
WARN("CONFIG_DESCRIPTION",
- "please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully\n" . $herecurr);
+ "expecting a 'help' section of $min_conf_desc_length or more lines\n" . $herecurr);
}
#print "is_start<$is_start> is_end<$is_end> length<$length>\n";
}
--
2.19.1