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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 06 May 2020 13:59:48 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.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, 2020-05-06 at 22:37 +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hey Lukas.

Don't expect _too_ much as checkpatch has for a long time
has done add/delete/move tests for files and emitted a
"Does MAINTAINERS need updating" message that most have
ignored or not seen as many patches are submitted without
running checkpatch.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists