[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90e3aaf8-91b1-8a16-16da-4a9c491d8579@leemhuis.info>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 15:54:18 +0100
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Kai Wasserbäch <kai@....carbon-project.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] checkpatch: warn when Reported-by: is not followed by
Link:
On 15.12.22 19:00, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-12-15 at 15:43 +0100, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
>> Encourage patch authors to link to reports by issuing a warning, if
>> a Reported-by: is not accompanied by a link to the report.
>
> Please also expand Documentation/ as appropriate to encourage this too.
Well, I already updated it a few moths ago, but yeah, will revisit the
docs and make it even clearer if needed (I assume that's the case).
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
>> @@ -3155,6 +3155,20 @@ sub process {
>> "Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by: name/email do not match \n" . "$here\n" . $rawline . "\n" .$rawlines[$linenr]);
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> + # check if Reported-by: is followed by a Link:
>> + if ($sign_off =~ /^reported-by:$/i) {
>> + if (!defined $lines[$linenr]) {
>> + WARN("BAD_REPORTED_BY_LINK",
>> + "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Link: to the report\n" . $herecurr . $rawlines[$linenr] . "\n");
>> + } elsif ($rawlines[$linenr] !~ /^\s*link:\s*(.*)/i) {
>
> This capture group isn't necessary and does not guarantee there is
> an actual link. Also this is allowing spaces before "Link:" when
> the reported-by test above does not allow spaces. Please be
> consistent. My preference would be to not allow spaces.
Good idea. FWIW, the section patch 3 changes has a space here as well:
```
> } elsif ($rawlines[$linenr] !~ /^\s*signed-off-by:\s*(.*)/i) {
```
Hence I guess I'll remove it as well, unless you for some reason tell me
that's a bad idea.
>> + WARN("BAD_REPORTED_BY_LINK",
>> + "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Link: to the report\n" . $herecurr . $rawlines[$linenr] . "\n");
>> + } elsif ($lines[$linenr] !~ /https?:\/\//i) {
>
> To make reading the match pattern easier, prefer m{} when the expected
> content uses / instead of using / as a delimiter.
Also a good idea. That being said:
I think I'll drop this check, as your comment made me think: why should
we check for "https?://" here at all? If we want to check that a "Link:"
is followed by a URI, then we should do that all the time, not just in
this single case.
Or am I missing something?
>> + WARN("BAD_REPORTED_BY_LINK",
>> + "Link: following Reported-by: should contain a URL\n" . $herecurr . $rawlines[$linenr] . "\n");
>> + }
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> # Check Fixes: styles is correct
Ciao, Thorsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists