linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve error message for p1-check

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:14:46 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve error message for p1-check

On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 16:08 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > The old error message was not precise. State now explicitly that the
> > > > prefix exists as a file/directory. Also change the conclusion ("appears
> > > > to be") into an instruction ("make sure").
> > > Why can't we suppress this warning unless both prefixes appear as files or 
> > > directories in the cwd?  ('a' and 'b' if using git format-patch)
> > I sent a suggested patch that checked $root/$patched_file
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/19/257
> So we need a combination of the two approaches then, it makes sense to 
> only emit the warning if the patched file exists in both prefixes.

I don't think so.  What about something like:

$ diff -urN kernel/foo~ kernel/foo > patch

I think we should only care about the patched file,.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/