[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230331041413.1908787-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 07:14:13 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: move duplicate sign off to separate warning type
Some maintainers prefer to allow duplicate signatures if that provides
additional details about the patch flow. E.g. if the original patch
author pulls the patch from the patchwork into the kernel branch, this
can result in duplicate SOB tags from him, however this reflects the
patch flow (one SOB for being the author, one SOB for pulling the patch,
adding (and maybe fixing) tags and pushing the patch further.
To facilitate easily handling this kind of warnings, separate duplicate
SOBs into the separate warning class ('DUPLICATE_SIGN_OFF').
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
---
This patch was initially sent half of a year ago. It received the only
comment from Joe, "I think that's poor process, but whatever..."
Could you please consider this patch for inclusion or possibly advise on
how to modify our process or why this is considered a poor practise (if
that matters, we are talking about drm/msm).
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index bd44d12965c9..b30a868375e1 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3134,7 +3134,7 @@ sub process {
$sig_nospace =~ s/\s//g;
$sig_nospace = lc($sig_nospace);
if (defined $signatures{$sig_nospace}) {
- WARN("BAD_SIGN_OFF",
+ WARN("DUPLICATE_SIGN_OFF",
"Duplicate signature\n" . $herecurr);
} else {
$signatures{$sig_nospace} = 1;
--
2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists