[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200207123334.GT14946@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:33:35 +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: Re: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend
table allocator for multiple sizes
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:30:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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
Argh, that's me hitting on the wrong 'nominal' in checkpatch.pl, same
difference though.
> 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