linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] checkpatch: improve handling of revert commits

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 21 Aug 2021 10:35:11 +0300
From:   Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] checkpatch: improve handling of revert commits



On 8/21/21 10:12 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 09:47 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
>>
>> On 8/20/21 1:17 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>
>>> And I'm not sure if this particular ERROR is that useful overall.
>>
>> I find it useful to check commit-id and that it matches a title.
>> It's easy to make a typo in commit-id and get an invalid one.
> 
> That's true, but I meant requiring the sha1 hash to contain both
> the word "commit" and use ("title").
> 
> Looking at checkpatch's errors produced by this GIT_COMMIT_ID
> test makes the required form seem a bit too inflexible to me.
> 
> For instance: a sha1 hash may be repeated in a commit message where
> the first instance has the correct form but the second use is just
> the hash and the warning is still produced.
> 

I agree with you. There is also another example with list of commits:
 - commit <id-1> ("Title1")
 - commit <id-2> ("Title2")
...

I see no reason in writing "commit" on each line.