[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1319670886.21924.22.camel@Joe-Laptop>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists