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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 11:26:59 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Allow not using -f with files that are in git On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 20:15 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Joe, rehi Geert > On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:07 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 16:03 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: [] > > > This is now commit f5f613259f3fea81 ("checkpatch: allow not using -f > > > with files that are in git"), causing: > > > > > > Global symbol "$gitroot" requires explicit package name (did you > > > forget to declare "my $gitroot"?) at scripts/checkpatch.pl line 980. > > > Execution of scripts/checkpatch.pl aborted due to compilation errors. [] > > I believe there is a dependency on another patch > > in -next that wasn't pushed to Linus' tree. > > > > commit 5ec1f7de97b26a3fa364bbb31fdd2e42c8e6fa22 > > Author: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> > > Date: Thu Oct 8 11:53:44 2020 +1100 > > > > checkpatch: test $GIT_DIR changes > > > > So it'd be better to revert right now until > > this other patch is accepted or pushed. > > Thanks, after cherry-picking that one from next, checkpatch works again. > However, there are some issues with that commit: > 1. ERROR: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'Joe > Perches <joe@...ches.com>', > 2. The Link: is bogus, and gives 404. I generally create patches against -next. The above commit was a test patch for Andrew who had some inconvenience because he doesn't generally use git or has a git repo in some non-standard path. I believe it works well enough to be OK, but I didn't test it and don't have the same setup. I'll post it again as a reply to this email with a with a sign-off and a better commit description and Linus/Andrew can decide if it's better to revert f5f613259f3f or apply it separately.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists