linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: use patch subject when reading from stdin

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

Date:   Tue, 15 Oct 2019 18:40:08 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: use patch subject when reading from stdin

Hi Joe,

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 5:50 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 08:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:48 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 11:20 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> []
> > > > I gave your solution a try.
> > > > It only enables the reset-on-next-patch feature when using stdin.
> > > > Thanks to the printed subject, it's now obvious to which patch a
> > > > message applies to.
> > > > However, the output is significantly different than when passing
> > > > a split patch series.  Can this be improved upon?
> > > >
> > > > Note that the only reason I'm using stdin is that I use formail to split
> > > > a bundle in individual patches.  Once checkpatch supports bundles (or
> > > > mboxes) containing multiple patches, there's no longer a need for
> > > > using formail, and the reset-on-next-patch feature should be
> > > > enabled unconditionally.
> > >
> > > Using your collection of little tools idea,
> > > why not write a trivial script like:
> > >
> > >         grep "^Subject:" $1
> > >         checkpatch.pl $1
> > >
> > > and use that as the command line for formail
> > > instead of adding unnecessary complexity to
> > > checkpatch?
> >
> > That would be another possibility.
> >
> > But given more maintainers are starting to apply patchwork bundles (cfr.
> > the workflows discussions), it makes sense to make their lives easier.
>
> But given this particular change only works for stdin, then this
> patch splitting idea wouldn't generically work.
>
> > This is also useful for maintainers who save all patches to apply into a
> > single mbox, and run checkpatch+git-am on that.
>
> Which also wouldn't generally work for checkpatch <mbox>

formail -s scripts/checkpatch.pl < <mbox>

> > Summarized: git-am handles multiple patches, checkpatch requires
> > splitting.
>
> I still think it's better to introduce YA script that disaggregates
> aggregated patches/emails and feeds each individual patch to
> checkpatch rather than making checkpatch learn how to disaggregate.
>
> Using "git mailsplit" as part of some additional script could work.

Thanks, didn't know git was assimilating formail functionality...

[reading git-mailsplit(1)]

The advantage of formail over git-mailsplit is that the former doesn't
create a bunch of files that need to be stored in a temporary place,
and cleant up afterwards.
But hey, that can be handled in yet-another-script...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds