linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix checkpatch warning

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:56:05 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Lucas Stankus <lucas.p.stankus@...il.com>
Cc:     "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix checkpatch warning

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 6:03 PM Lucas Stankus <lucas.p.stankus@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Tidy up code by fixing the following checkpatch warnings:
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> CHECK: Lines should not end with a '('
>
> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stankus <lucas.p.stankus@...il.com>

Did you change anything other than fixing the Signed-off-by that Shuah
requested?

Generally when you make a small change after receiving a Reviewed-by
(especially one so small as here), you are supposed to include the
Reviewed-by with the other git commit message footers directly below
the "Signed-off-by". Please remember to do so in the future.

Also, when you make a change to a patch and send out a subsequent
revision, it is best practice to make note explaining the changes you
made since the last revision in the "comment section" [1] of the
git-diff, right after the three dashes and before the change log as
you can see in this example [2] (note that everything after
"Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>\n ---" and before
"tools/testing/kunit/configs/broken_on_uml.config | 2 ++" is discarded
by git am).

Anyway, aside from these minor points of LKML best practices, this
patch still looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18979120/is-it-possible-to-add-a-comment-to-a-diff-file-unified
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210209071034.3268897-1-davidgow@google.com/T/