[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1493137691.18659.1.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:28:11 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/22] tools arch: Sync arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S with
the kernel
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 16:18 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > If we are going to have all these copies of kernel files below
> > > "tools/...", perhaps checkpatch could warn people touching one
> > > that the other needs the same update?
> >
> > How would checkpatch know tools hasn't already updated the other?
>
> If checkpatch had a list of all the tools copies, it could warn if a patch
> touched a file without touching the copy.
I rather doubt these files are modified simultaneously.
A quick and no doubt incomplete git log -- "tools/*/kernel.h"
seems to show little simultaneity.
> Not completely ideal because people might update the two files in
> separate patches in a series (in which case they would see warnings
> from both patches).
>
> Also means that checkpatch needs the list of copied files ... not sure
> how often that changes.
Nor I. Anyway, feel free to propose an actual patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists