[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1418961473.25129.3.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:57:53 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Chickles, Derek" <Derek.Chickles@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
"computersforpeace@...il.com" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"cernekee@...il.com" <cernekee@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Fix MAINTAINERS search pattern
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 02:34 +0000, Chickles, Derek wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:12 -0800, Derek Chickles wrote:
> > > This fixes the check that was supposed to prevent the MAINTAINERS
> > > warning from appearing when you run checkpatch.pl on a patch that
> > > includes new files/directories and an updated MAINTAINERS file.
> >
> > This suggested patch doesn't work.
> >
> > $realfile isn't set until the file shows up
> > in the patch itself.
> >
> > The current test looks at the changelog
> > before the files are modified and is correct.
> >
>
> Thanks, you're right. My mistake was trying to run checkpatch.pl on a diff.
> My patch works on diffs while the original code does not. This is by chance
> really because MAINTAINERS is early in the patch. Using format-patch on
> something that is committed is clearly the correct solution.
Both tests can be used.
Send another patch without deleting the first test
and that'd be good to me.
--
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