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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1110271309050.7639@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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, 26 Oct 2011, Joe Perches wrote:

> > I mean it only makes sense if both prefixes exist (otherwise patch and 
> > git-apply will assume it's not a -p0 patch).
> 
> I think we should not care about the prefixes at all,
> only whether or not the patched file exists.
> 

Nack, there's nothing wrong with storing original files that you're 
modifying in a subdirectory with a name of your choice in the kernel tree.  
It doesn't imply a -p0 patch unless both prefixes appear and that's the 
best indication that it appears in both the patch author and patch 
applier's tree whereas the file being modified is ambiguous.
--
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/