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  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:   Wed, 6 May 2020 22:37:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
cc:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS: Wrong ordering in S390 PCI SUBSYSTEM



On Wed, 6 May 2020, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 8:46 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pierre,
> >
> > with your commit de267a7c71ba ("s390/pci: Documentation for zPCI"),
> > visible on next-20200505, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f MAINTAINERS
> > complains:
> >
> > WARNING: Misordered MAINTAINERS entry - list file patterns in alphabetic order
> > #14723: FILE: MAINTAINERS:14723:
> > +F:     drivers/pci/hotplug/s390_pci_hpc.c
> > +F:     Documentation/s390/pci.rst
> >
> >
> > This is due to wrong ordering of the entries in your submission. If you
> > would like me to send you a patch fixing that, please just let me know.
> >
> > It is a recent addition to checkpatch.pl to report ordering problems in
> > MAINTAINERS, so you might have not seen that at submission time.
> 
> Why not to send a patch?
> Same for the rest of similar mails from you.
> 

Well, the checkpatch warning is new, so I want to find out if and make 
sure that the involved developers are generally okay getting those patches 
or if there is a better way handling those patches to MAINTAINERS.

I do not expect that there are too many further cases of this warning 
appearing soon in linux-next now that checkpatch already warns about it.

Lukas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists