[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130717112405.GB4550@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:24:05 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
kbuild-all@...org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [drm-intel:drm-intel-fixes 52/52] ERROR: Unrecognized email
address: 'stable.]'
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:01:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 11:29 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > > FYI, there are new warnings show up in
> > > tree: git://people.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel.git drm-intel-fixes
> > > head: 71e4092e52499ec74bc1dec0f883b15f2c424ec5
> > > commit: 71e4092e52499ec74bc1dec0f883b15f2c424ec5 [52/52] drm/i915: fix long-standing SNB regression in power consumption after resume v2
> > >
> > > scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-drm-i915-fix-long-standing-SNB-regression-in-power-c.patch
> > >
> > > ERROR: Unrecognized email address: 'stable.]'
> > > #41:
> > > cc: stable.]
> >
> > Well, I've added that while applying the patch - I tend to smash
> > maintainer notes into the sob section and word-wraping caused the cc:
> > stable remark to be parsed. Is there an officially sanctioned way for
> > such notes that appeases checkpatch? Adding lkml and checkpatch
> > maintainer.
> > -Daniel
>
> (It would have been nice to get the content that failes
> instead of having to pull the tree)
Oops, sorry.
> Don't wrap text to start a line with cc:
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
> [danvet: Add note about v1 vs. v2 of this patch and use standard
> layout for the commit citation. Also add the tested-bys from v1 and a
> cc: stable.]
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org (Note: tiny conflict due to the addition of
>
> You could have added something like:
>
> [danvet: Add note about v1 vs. v2 of this patch and use standard
> layout for the commit citation.
> Also add the tested-bys from v1 and a cc: stable.]
Ok, I'll try to rewrap if the cc: hits the first row next time around -
just didn't occur to me that checkpatch would notice and I tend to not
re-run checkpatch before pushing when editing a patch a bit.
Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
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