[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200207123035.GI14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:30:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>, joe@...ches.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com
Subject: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend table
allocator for multiple sizes
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:34 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:56:40AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'Peter
> > > Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>'
> > > (in all patches)
> > >
> > > I can fix that (the From?) up while applying.
> >
> > I'm not sure where that warning comes from, but if you feel it needs
> > fixing, sure. I normally only add the (Intel) thing to the SoB. I've so
> > far never had complaints about that.
>
> Checkpatch doesn't like this.
Ooh, I see, that's a relatively new warning, pretty daft if you ask me.
Now I have to rediscover how I went about teaching checkpatch to STFU ;-)
Joe, should that '$email eq $author' not ignore rfc822 comments? That
is:
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
and:
Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
are, in actual fact, the same.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists