linux-kernel - Re: Fw: [PATCH 0/2] feat: checkpatch: prohibit Buglink: and warn about missing Link:

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]

Message-ID: <a16d39ff8a0d61c929b518572798920a13c82bd1.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Dec 2022 02:58:40 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kai Wasserbäch <kai@....carbon-project.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH 0/2] feat: checkpatch: prohibit Buglink: and warn
 about missing Link:

On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 11:06 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 06.12.22 10:21, Joe Perches wrote:

> > I'm not sure that "Patchwork:" is a reasonable prefix.
> 
> /me neither
> 
> > Is that documented anywhere?
> 
> Couldn't find anything.

I knew that.

btw:

there are a _lot_ more uses of Link: with patchwork content than
Patchwork: prefix uses, so maybe just "Link:" should be accepted.

$ git log --format=email -i --grep "patchwork" | grep -i "patchwork" | \
  cut -f1-3 -d'/' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -10
  25789 Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org
   7160 Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org
   4109 Patchwork: https://patchwork.linux-mips.org
    777 Patchwork: http://patchwork.linux-mips.org
    372 Patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org
    200 https://patchwork.kernel.org
    154 Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org
    116 [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org
     76 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org
     33 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org

> LGTM: I did some tests and it seem to do the right thing. Can we have
> your Signed-off-by: for that snippet?

It's your patch, I'm just suggesting...

cheers, Joe