Re: Re: Re: checkpatch: support deprecated terms checking

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:18 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:27:07 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 01:35 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:29:23 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 15:02 +0200, MichaÅ MirosÅaw wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see that this patch went into next and is already inciting people to
> > > > > do wrong things [1]. Can you please fix it to require '--subjective'
> > > > > switch or otherwise mark it clearly as suggestion-only?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The coding-style as in Linus' master says about *NEW* uses of the words
> > > > > listed (those introductions I expect to be actually rare) and not about
> > > > > existing use in the code or industry. Making a noise about all uses
> > > > > found surely will generate a lot more irrelevant patches.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg51849.html
> > > > 
> > > > And if not reverted, perhaps do not check existing files
> > > > at all but only check patches and change the message to
> > > > show only suggestions not from a specification.
> > > 
> > > Agreed for this case.  However, excluding existing file check doesn't fully
> > > avoid this problem.  Also, more terms having different deprecation rules might
> > > be added in future.  How about allowing file check but show reference in the
> > > suggestion message as below?
> > 
> > The general problem is that drivers/staging, net/ and drivers/net
> > all have --strict on by default.
> > 
> > Emitting these deprecated terms messages with -f --file uses for
> > files in those directories isn't a great idea.
> 
> Thank you for kindly explaining your concenrs in detail.  However, I think it's
> ok to do this check even without '--strict' for files if we explicitly says
> it's suggestion only, as Michal said.  My patch does so.
> 
> > > diff --git a/scripts/deprecated_terms.txt b/scripts/deprecated_terms.txt
> > []
> > > @@ -3,8 +3,10 @@
> > >  # The format of each line is:
> > >  # deprecated||suggested
> > >  #
> > > +# If special rules are applied on the terms, please comment those.
> > 
> > Disagree.  Comments about these existing uses aren't helpful.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand your point here.  Why do you think it's not helpful?
> If 'checkpatch' finds the deprecated terms, it will ask people to read this
> file, which explains special rules for each of the deprecations if exists.  The
> rule is, in the case of 'slave', 'applies to new uses only'.  Therefore, people
> could stop sending the noisy unnecessary patches to the maintainers.

Because it will describe this for _every_ instance
of any deprecated word in the file.