linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add test for empty line after Fixes statement

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190520135214.GM4573@mtr-leonro.mtl.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 May 2019 16:52:14 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Michal Kalderon <mkalderon@...vell.com>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add test for empty line after
 Fixes statement

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 06:34:49AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 13:16 +0000, Michal Kalderon wrote:
> > > From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 3:57 PM
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add test for empty line after Fixes
> > > statement
> > >
> > > External Email
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 15:42 +0300, Michal Kalderon wrote:
> > > > Check that there is no empty line after a fixes statement
> > >
> > > why?
> > >
> > This comment is given a lot on the netdev and rdma mailing lists when patches are submitted with
> > an empty line between Fixes: tag and SOB tags. Since "Fixes:" is just another tag and should be kept
> > together with the other ones.
>
> So test that all signature blocks and Fixes do not have
> blank lines between them instead of just the "Fixes:" line.
>
> And if there is some specific ordering required, perhaps a
> test for that ordering should be added as well.

I'm aware of only one request - Fixes above SOB.

Thanks

>