Please do not generate patches purely based on checkpatch.

Greg KH greg at
Sun Jul 26 13:45:08 EDT 2015

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:05:37PM +0530, Yogesh Chaudhari wrote:
> On 26 July 2015 at 03:42, Greg KH <greg at> wrote:
> > No, that would be two different things.  Do the bug fix first, and then
> > the cleanup on a different patch.  And even then, most maintainers will
> > not take a cleanup patch.  Stick with subsystems that do take these
> > types of fixes if you want/like to do them (i.e. drivers/staging/*)
> I have come to know that Greg is one of the most liberal maintainers
> in this regard and accepts checkpatch related patches, but other than
> that, it seems to depend on maintainer's choice (which is fine IMHO).
> However, is there a place which documents which maintainers(and/or
> sub-systems) accept checkpatch(or other cleanup related) patches and
> who will reject them outright? Wouldn't it be good to have this
> documented, especially given that using the checkpatch is advised in
> Documentation/SubmitChecklist?

checkpatch is required for when you submit new patches, cleaning up
existing code using checkpatch is not a good idea unless you are sending
patches in for drivers/staging/*

So never use the --file option, unless you know for sure that the
maintainer accepts such patches.  And if you don't know the answer to
that, assume that they do not :)


greg k-h

More information about the Kernelnewbies mailing list