[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1f15283f770c71923920fef8fc6c643433d1ef9.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 11:44:46 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff
checks.
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 00:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:48 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 12:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague.
> > > > Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
> >
> > Likely now, the type should be changed from NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF
> > to a single something else for all the other types of messages.
> >
> >
> Since BAD_SIGNOFF is being used for a different context, then
> probably BAD_AUTHOR_SIGNOFF.
>
> Should this work or anything else you have in mind?
That may be a bit too strong a wording as these aren't
significant/bad defects.
Maybe something like FROM_SIGNOFF_MISMATCH.
It's not anything that would reject the patch.
It's a pity type uses both SIGNOFF and SIGN_OFF.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists