Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] checkpatch: add verbose mode

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2021-01-27 at 01:57 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:41 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-01-27 at 00:05 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > Add a new verbose mode to checkpatch.pl to emit additional verbose
> > > test descriptions.
> > > 
> > > The verbose mode is optional and can be enabled by the flag
> > > --verbose.
[]
> > > Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst:
> > > 
> > > .. CHECKPATCH_START
> > 
> > Nak on the keyword uses.
> > 
> > This should really just parse the input file whenever TYPE is found
> > via some fixed format and save the verbose description after that.
> > 
> > Use .rst Field Lists instead, and ideally, keep the list in alphabetic
> > order or group by similar use.
> > 
> > https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/user/rst/quickref.html#field-lists
> > 
> > e.g.:
> > 
> > :LINE_SPACING:
> >         Vertical space is wasted given the limited number of lines an
> >         editor window can display when multiple blank lines are used.
> > 
> > :SPACING:
> >         Whitespace style used in the kernel sources is described in
> >         ref:`Documentation/process/Coding-Style.rst section 3.1.
> > 
> > :TRAILING_WHITESPACE:
> >         Trailing whitespace should always be removed.
> >         Some editors highlight the trailing whitespace and cause visual
> >         distractions when editing files.
> > 
> > etc...
[]
> for the output part can we do something to make the text
> look a bit more nice? I think some of the verbose descriptions
> can go a bit long.

Which is why verbose should be optional.

> Also will the verbose descriptions be limited to say single
> paragraphs?

Ideally, no.

> If there are multiple paragraphs then the output
> does appear a bit messy.

I fail to see how that's a problem but play with it and see what
you can do.