Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759511AbZJGPjf (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:39:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759502AbZJGPje (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:39:34 -0400 Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:35782 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759471AbZJGPjd (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:39:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] checkpatch: add a blacklist From: Daniel Walker To: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: Krzysztof Halasa , Andy Whitcroft , Li Zefan , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1254928114.1696.164.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> References: <1253585691-10987-1-git-send-email-dwalker@fifo99.com> <1253585691-10987-2-git-send-email-dwalker@fifo99.com> <1253585691-10987-3-git-send-email-dwalker@fifo99.com> <4AB86ED1.1040200@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090930152708.GD2957@shadowen.org> <1254406711.18167.88.camel@desktop> <1254887534.18167.253.camel@desktop> <1254925617.18167.262.camel@desktop> <1254928114.1696.164.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:38:27 -0700 Message-Id: <1254929907.18167.301.camel@desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3713 Lines: 80 On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 11:08 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Daniel, > > This is getting old. You've successfully entered the /dev/null folder to > several major developers. Getting into a /dev/null folder for code comments is just absolutely insane to me. Any one that puts me into /dev/null has some pretty low tolerances .. What's getting old exactly ? The fact that Krzysztof and I are having a discussion about this? > The checkpatch.pl script is a very useful tool. I run it on all my > patches to make sure that I don't have any silly formatting errors. It > even catches some real bugs now and then. > > That said, if we really wanted to have checkpatch as a authoritative > tool, it would be executed by a bot on all patches submitted to LKML > (which you seem to have put on yourself to do). But if Linus or others > wanted that, they would have set it up. You have a much different impression of this list than I do.. From my perspective this list is made up of 1000's of people each having their own agenda.. I have an agenda , you have one, everyone has one of their own.. By saying "if Linus or others wanted that, they would have set it up." . Your basically saying that only some "cool" people can have specific agenda's and some (me) can't have agenda's , which to me is totally bogus and wrong.. You had your chance to comments on my activity already, and did I take your advice or anyones advice from this list? Do you see lots of emails from me on checkpatch errors constantly?? > We assume that the maintainers of the system are competent enough to > keep a decent formatting style that conforms to the rest of the kernel. > There are some instances that the style may change to cover cases that > are unique, like the events headers. I don't totally disagree with that, however as I'm telling Krzysztof even maintainers should have a good reason why they are deviating from it. > Really it should be up to the maintainer to tell a submitter that they > need to run checkpatch. You are coming out as the checkpatch Nazi leader > to "enforce" your will of the tool on others. And when they tell you, > it's not that big of a deal, you have a conniption. conniption? I hope your joking.. I argue sure, which is my right to do.. Clearly I can't force people to do anything, like I can't force you to change your events header files. I gave you an alternative, you didn't use it, and there is nothing else I can do about it.. > So my advice to you is to take a chill pill (they come in chewables) and > relax a bit on this topic. If you had just sent out some nice emails to > obvious breakage in patches, then it would have been fine. But you are > coming across a bit too authoritarian, and it is becoming quite > annoying. Well there is a potentially easy way for you to stop me.. All you have to do is write a patch that modifies Documentation/SubmittingPatches . I'm not trying to bluff you at all, I fully expect you to submit a patch that changes that .. If it goes in then that's what I will follow. You'll notice also I'm not sending many emails recently on this subject right? It's like you want to harp on this more than I do .. Just relax the submission rules so that checkpatch is basically an optional part of the submission process. Adding that you don't actually need to run it, you don't need a good reason not to follow the rules etc.. Or expand on it to fully explain what you think the deal is or should be. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/