linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: gpib: Add TODO file

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: <B28HXaYBd4-AP7g9jMpXgQEcJIzAQUsaUqMerdy_Hk0tR2Q9RKTAmcYbtq3LR06X3yHj0R6D4bLJHEHCYsszgjvnfhgZ7K5QwOzx5JLNI_A=@protonmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:34:07 +0000
From: Dominik Karol Piątkowski <dominik.karol.piatkowski@...tonmail.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: dpenkler@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: gpib: Add TODO file

On Wednesday, October 16th, 2024 at 07:33, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 07:28:57PM +0000, Dominik Karol Piątkowski wrote:
> 
> > Add a TODO file stub for the gpib driver.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dominik Karol Piątkowski dominik.karol.piatkowski@...tonmail.com
> > ---
> > v2: Remove maintainers from TODO, as they can be found in MAINTAINERS file
> > drivers/staging/gpib/TODO | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/gpib/TODO
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/TODO b/drivers/staging/gpib/TODO
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..850dc1102e54
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/TODO
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +TODO:
> > +- checkpatch.pl fixes
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
> 
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
> 
> - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
> did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
> Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
> kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
> needs to be done here to properly describe this.
> 
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h's patch email bot

Hi Greg,

I listed the changes below the --- line. Probably I should have added extra
newline, or maybe even another --- line below the changes in order to not
trigger the patch-bot message and make it more readable. Maybe I should also
explicitly use "V1 -> V2" instead of "v2" when listing changes? I am trying
to understand the filtering rules that are in use, in order to avoid this
situation in the future.

I see that in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst there is an extra
newline after listed changes, would it be enough?

Thanks,

Dominik Karol