Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] checkpatch: add verbose mode
From: Dwaipayan Ray
Date: Fri Feb 26 2021 - 04:23:19 EST
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:29 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:08 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On Mon, 2021年02月22日 at 13:22 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
>
> > > Add a new verbose mode to checkpatch. The verbose test
>
> > > descriptions are read from the checkpatch documentation
>
> > > file at `Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst`.
>
> > >
>
> > > The verbose mode is optional and can be enabled by the
>
> > > flag -v or --verbose.
>
> > >
>
> > > The documentation file is only parsed by checkpatch.pl
>
> > > if the verbose mode is enabled. The verbose mode can
>
> > > not be used together with the --terse option.
>
> >
>
> > I don't have any real objection to this patch set, but as this
>
> > might be added to the Documentation tree and in .rst format,
>
> > perhaps Jonathan Corbet and/or Mauro Carvalho Chehab might have
>
> > some opinion.
>
> >
>
> > Also I do not want to be a maintainer of this .rst file and
>
> > likely neither Jon nor Mauro would either. Perhaps you?
>
> >
>
>
>
> I could take it up if everybody is okay with it!
>
>
>
>
And as I set Dwaipayan on this task on documenting checkpatch, I will
>
assist in maintaining this file as well. I will also pull some strings
>
to increase chances that Dwaipayan becomes a longer-term member in
>
this community and on this maintainer task.
>
Sounds nice to me! I would definitely love to remain as a active
member even after the mentorship period ends. So I think this is a good
start :)
>
> > Ideally, the patch order would be reversed so the .rst file
>
> > is added first, then checkpatch updated to use it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sure, if Jonathan or Mauro has no objections to it, I will be happy
>
> to resend it so that it can be picked up properly.
>
>
>
> > And _a lot_ more types and descriptive content should be added.
>
>
>
> Yes that's for sure. If this makes it I will try to get all of the
>
> other types in.
>
>
I agree as well, probably a critical mass for inclusion is that we
>
have at least 25% (so roughly 50 rules) documented.
>
>
> And if Lukas agrees, a little help from my fellow kernel mentees will
>
> be nice as well!
>
>
>
>
Completely agree. I will recruit new mentees and go through the
>
exercises with them, until they are ready to send proper patches to
>
checkpatch.rst. As the designated maintainer of that file, you will be
>
busy reviewing, consolidating that content and pushing back if it is
>
not good enough for inclusion (so just as in the typical "good cop-bad
>
cop" game: I will motivate and help them to submit, you make sure you
>
get good content).
>
That is a nice plan! Certainly looking forward to it.
Thanks & Regards,
Dwaipayan.