On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 16:54 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:56:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > On 09/14/2016 07:51 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > checkpatch can be a useful tool for patches. > > > > > > It can be a much more controversial tool when used on files with the > > > -f option for style and whitespace changes for code that is relatively > > > stable, obsolete, or for maintained by specific individuals. [] > > This will certainly help to reduce the noise. On the other hand I remember > > Linus > > saying something along the line that he does not like the -f parameter (and > > he > > prefers to set this automatically). So while I like the approach I am not > > happy > > enough to ack right now - still looking for a better alternative :-/
> This seems entirely compatible with autodetection. If checkpatch > detects that it runs on a file rather than a patch, it can assume -f. > It can then apply this same logic to reject that if 1) in a kernel tree > and 2) running on a non-staging file and 3) not passed --force. checkpatch doesn't do autodetection and there's no real need for it to do it either. The reason is in the name. get_maintainer does.
