[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f7ae389b64b83918ba624d107d8fa49883df540.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 09:22:59 -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 Thu, 2022-12-08 at 14:18 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 06.12.22 10:21, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 09:50 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > On 06.12.22 08:44, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > > > To me most of these are in the noise level, but perhaps all should just
> > > > use Link:
> > > >
> > > > $ git log -100000 --format=email -P --grep='^\w+:[ \t]*http' | \
> > > > grep -Poh '^\w+:[ \t]*http' | \
> > > > sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
> > > > 103889 Link: http
> > > > 415 BugLink: http
> > > > 372 Patchwork: http
> > > > 270 Closes: http
> > > > 221 Bug: http
> > > > 121 References: http
> > > > 101 v1: http
> > > > 77 Bugzilla: http
> > > > 60 URL: http
> > > > 59 v2: http
> > > > 37 Datasheet: http
> > > > 35 v3: http
> > > > 19 v4: http
> > > > 12 v5: http
> >
> > > Ha, I considered doing something like that when I wrote my earlier mail,
> > > but was to lazy. :-D thx!
[]
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> > @@ -3250,6 +3250,13 @@ sub process {
> > $commit_log_possible_stack_dump = 0;
> > }
> >
> > +# Check for odd prefixes before a URI/URL
> > + if ($in_commit_log &&
> > + $line =~ /^\s*(\w+):\s*http/ && $1 !~ /^(?:Link|Patchwork)/) {
> > + WARN("PREFER_LINK",
> > + "Unusual link reference '$1:', prefer 'Link:'\n" . $herecurr);
> > + }
> > +
>
> One more thing: That afaics would result in a warning when people use
> things like "v1: https://example.com/somewhere", which some people
> apparently like. Those imho are not considered tags, hence I'd say we
> allow them, unless you disagree.
I'd say no as almost all of those are when patches contain
references to previous patch submissions that should instead
be below the --- line. Perhaps there should be a separate
warning for those v<n>: uses saying to move them below the ---
but there really aren't many uses.
Most of the v<n>: style prefixes are from git pulls/merges.
Redoing the git log grep with --no-merges shows that fairly well.
$ git log -100000 --no-merges --format=email -P --grep='^\w+:[ \t]*http' | \
grep -Poh '^\w+:[ \t]*http' | \
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
103958 Link: http
418 BugLink: http
372 Patchwork: http
280 Closes: http
224 Bug: http
123 References: http
84 Bugzilla: http
61 URL: http
42 v1: http
38 Datasheet: http
20 v2: http
9 Ref: http
9 Fixes: http
9 Buglink: http
8 v3: http
8 Reference: http
7 See: http
6 1: http
5 link: http
3 Link:http
3 IGT: http
3 0: http
2 Website: http
2 Schematics: http
2 RHBZ: http
2 Reported: http
2 MR: http
2 Links: http
2 LINK: http
2 Link: http
2 Bugs: http
2 BUG: http
2 2: http
1 v5: http
1 v4: http
1 V1: http
1 v1:http
1 Twitter: http
1 tree: http
1 tool: http
1 tests: http
1 tasks: http
1 Source: http
1 SoM: http
1 scctc: http
1 Reproducer: http
1 reliable: http
1 Related: http
1 Reference:http
1 oscca: http
1 Mesa: http
1 Lore: http
1 Links:http
1 ink: http
1 in: http
1 IETF: http
1 here: http
1 Examples: http
1 bz: http
1 Bug:http
1 AlsaInfo: http
Powered by blists - more mailing lists