[PATCH] aiaiai: allow defining checkpatch.pl location
Keller, Jacob E
jacob.e.keller at intel.com
Mon Feb 3 14:57:02 EST 2014
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 13:26 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 12:39 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller at intel.com>
> > Instead of hardcoding the checkpatch.pl script into the repository, use the
> > in-kernel script by default unless the user specifies a path with
> > --checkpatch option. Additionally add an email.cfg option for specifying
> > checkpatch.pl per project.
> > A future patch will remove the external checkpatch.pl binary included in this
> > project.
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller at intel.com>
> This looks generally like a good idea to me.
> However, I think that we should do something similar for the coccinelle
> scripts. Indeed, why carrying a private copy of them?
> Doing this only for checkpatch.pl would be an incomplete step.
> So we'd also need an option for coccinelle, similar to the --checkpatch
> that you introduce.
> And my thinking that may be it would be better to introduce a --upstream
> option which would specify the upstream branch name, or tag, or commit
> ID, or another refspec. Aiaiai would pick checkpatch.pl and coccinelle
> scripts from there.
> Or it could be a path to the upstream tree. And Aiaiai would pick
> checkpatch.pl and coccinelle scripts from there.
> I am not sure which is better. The latter is certainly easier to
> I can try to implement one of these, which one do you prefer? I find
> both useful, but would vote for the second one.
I think the second option is definitely simpler, but doesn't make it
easy to obtain a particular version of a file... We could support using
git-archive, tho this does require a new version of git (18.104.22.168)
That might be more work than necessary though.. I just don't like that
the 2nd method requires ensuring that the tree is already at the correct
version.. It's not a huge burden though.
More information about the aiaiai