[Intel-gfx] i915 vs checkpatch
arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com
Mon Mar 5 12:44:21 UTC 2018
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:10:21PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > I'd recommend not making checkpatch ever fail CI, but at most warning.
> Agreed. But we want the automated warnings on the list, neutrally from a
> bot instead of a developer spending time nitpicking this stuff. And the
> committers should pay attention before pushing.
We are never failing CI because of it. We are sending it simply as a
warning (if there's anything to report).
> Really, everyone should be running checkpatch themselves locally before
> sending patches, ignoring the irrelevant warnings with good taste...
> > Plus silence the ones we obviously think are silly (or currently
> > inconsistent in our code).
> > I think the ingore list is probably best kept within maintainer-tools
> > itself, that way we at least have visibility into it from committers.
> Agreed, but as I wrote in  we need to add checkpatch profiles or
> config or something, because I want *all* the warnings when I run it
> locally. And if we decide to, say, enforce kernel types in i915 but
> drm-misc decides otherwise, that's also another config.
>  http://email@example.com
Good. CI is using dim and I want too keep it that way. I prefer a cmd
line switch over .dimrc. Keeping track of an additional file for the
builder would be an annoyance.
More information about the Intel-gfx