linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch false positive

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <544626FE.6090703@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:27:26 +0200
From:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: checkpatch false positive

Hi,

On 10/21/2014 10:28 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 10:14 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Checkpatch gives the following warning:
>>
>> WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
>> #31:
>> new file mode 100644
>>
>> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 352 lines checked
>>
>> 0001-input-Add-new-sun4i-lradc-keys-driver.patch has style problems, please review.
>>
>> If any of these errors are false positives, please report
>> them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
>>
>> On a patch of mine, even though it updates MAINTAINERS properly, it would
>> be nice if checkpatch would check for a hunk updating MAINTAINERS, and then
>> would not issue this warning (note my perl-foo is way too weak to fix this
>> myself).
>>
>> I've attached the patch triggering the warning.
> 
> Hi Hans.
> 
> It's not really fixable.  Of course you are welcome to
> try though.
> 
> Many patches are discrete and the entire series isn't
> visible to a single MAINTAINERS update scan by checkpatch.

I understand that in that scenario it is not fixable, but in the case I was
talking about the addition of the new file and the MAINTAINERS update
are part of a single patch (adding a small new driver), it would be nice
if at least in that case checkpatch would not complain. This does not even
need to be really smart, it could just check if a patch introducing new
files is touching MAINTAINERS at all, and if it does suppress the warning.

As said my perl-foo is weak, so I will not be trying to fix this myself.

Regards,

Hans
--
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/