| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAP=VYLqnRXd_LR67+xz2k6YKX7YJiA7cgYwZ8pN3aQMgDN0dzw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:47:43 -0500 From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: apw@...onical.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: do not try to sanity test cover letters On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 19:29 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >> One possibly common workflow is this: >> >> git format-patch -o mypatches --cover-letter ^start end >> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl mypatches/* > > I use a script for this and don't put the check > in checkpatch but put the check in bash. Sure, and I can do the same. But my question to you is whether you think the above is a common workflow, and if the false positives that it generates will decrease the number of people likely to make using it a part of their routine? Paul. -- > > > -- > 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/ -- 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