On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 09:38:00AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Interesting ... overall, we don't generally have detailed documentation > for out-of-tree utilities, though there isn't necessarily any reason why > we couldn't. But I'm curious as to why you haven't submitted the tool > itself? That's a great question! I kept it external for a few reasons: First, I'm still pretty new to kernel development and wanted the freedom to iterate quickly as I learn what checks are actually useful. Being external means I can push updates immediately when someone points out a new common mistake (like Greg just did with the date check!). Second, I wrote everything in bash for simplicity, which probably isn't the best fit for the kernel's scripts/ directory. Plus, as Greg mentioned in his reply, many of these checks really belong in checkpatch.pl rather than a separate tool. So my plan now is to work on patches for checkpatch.pl to add the most useful checks there (where they belong), while keeping the workflow helpers as an external toolkit. Given this direction, would you prefer I withdraw this documentation patch? I'm happy either way - just thought it might help other newcomers in the meantime, but I totally understand if you'd rather wait until the checks are properly integrated into checkpatch.pl. Thanks for reviewing this! Thanks, Ignacio
