linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch WARNING: patch prefix 'b' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111019112220.GG3217@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:22:20 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: checkpatch WARNING: patch prefix 'b' exists, appears to be a
 -p0 patch

> Maybe something as simple as a comment in the checkpatch source
> to say that such a file / directory can cause false positives?

I'd hope this error message would be clear enough, what do you think?

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 3dfc471..19e4de7 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1506,7 +1506,7 @@ sub process {
 			if (!$file && $tree && $p1_prefix ne '' &&
 			    -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
 				WARN("PATCH_PREFIX",
-				     "patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch\n");
+				     "patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists as file/directory. Make sure this isn't a -p0 patch\n");
 			}
 
 			if ($realfile =~ m@...clude/asm/@) {

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)