Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <3d88023b2da9ead8669d4c180b6c11ebf536abe7.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in
 voluntary_active_balance()
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 07 May 2020 13:18:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20200507154512.1065cba8@gandalf.local.home>
References: <20200507110625.37254-1-yanaijie@huawei.com>
         <jhjpnbg6lkf.mognet@arm.com> <20200507132828.1af39b80@gandalf.local.home>
         <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home>
         <f0e6f50e910238366b1d8f398c91d3066baac7cf.camel@perches.com>
         <20200507144534.09abd685@gandalf.local.home>
         <96fe70f11245433ce4f19bffaf2d167dbf69a2a0.camel@perches.com>
         <20200507154512.1065cba8@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 15:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2020 12:06:56 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > People describe changes as a "fix" all the time for stuff
> > that isn't an actual fix for a logic defect but is instead
> > an update to a particular style preference.
> > 
> > Then the "fix" word causes the patch to be rather uselessly
> > applied to stable trees by AUTOSEL.
> > 
> > It's especially bad when the 'Fixes: <sha1> ("description")'
> > tag is also added.
> > 
> > It's a difficult thing to regulate and I don't believe a
> > good mechanism would be possible to add to checkpatch or
> > coccinelle to help isolate these things.
> > 
> > git diff -w sometimes helps, but that's not really a thing
> > that checkpatch could do.
> > 
> > Any suggestions?
> 
> I'm unfamiliar with how the coccinelle script is used, but I thought there
> was some discussion some time back to have checkpatch not produces the same
> kinds of warnings to code as it does to patches.
> 
> A lot of useless updates were being submitted when people were running
> checkpatch on existing kernel code and producing warnings that are not
> worth "fixing", but something that new code should try to avoid.

checkpatch already has several blocks that look like

	if (input_is_a_patch)
		warn(...)
	else if (input_is_a_file)
		check(...)

where by default, check() is not output.

I've also suggested variations discouraging checkpatch
use on files outside of drivers/staging/ multiple times

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0753cae7829b98998ac3f5f9fcb52ba1f2475ee1.camel@perches.com/