linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] checkpatch: Add support for Checkpatch-ignore patch footer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+i-1C2OrLDvp_xiomc_B96vZu8G8KRrg7KBHATz2y7KMO8UsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:29:14 +0100
From: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 
	Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>, Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] checkpatch: Add support for Checkpatch-ignore patch footer

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 17:04, Konstantin Ryabitsev
<konstantin@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 03:25:41PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > Do we really want this to become part of the permanent commit message? I'm
> > > pretty sure this won't go over well with many.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Tweaks aimed at checkpatch are only useful during the code review stage, so
> once that code is accepted upstream, they become wholly irrelevant. A
> checkpatch trailer in the permanent commit record serves no purpose, not even
> a historical one.

Yeah that's a good argument for them being unnecessary. It's not clear
why them persisting beyond their useful lifetime would be a problem
though. Any given reader of a commit message is already very likely to
see tags they don't care about in that moment, is that something
people really complain about?

> At best, utility trailers like that need to go into the basement of the patch,
> not into the commit message.

If people do really object to them being in the commit message, I like
this as a backup. It looks like the UX for git would be like:

  git notes --ref checkpatch-ignore append -m "EMAIL_SUBJECT"

Then if you set --notes=checkpatch-ignore in your format-patch command
it comes out like this after the "---":

  Notes (checkpatch-ignore):
      EMAIL_SUBJECT

Downsides?

1. More Perl. But, OK, we have an existence proof that writing Perl is possible.

2. Doesn't seem this can be imported by 'git am'. But, I don't think
that's necessary.

3. That 'git notes' command is a bit unwieldy. But, whatever.

4. With the default Git config, if you rebase your commits you lose the setting.

Point 4 does matter IMO, but it can at least be worked around with:

  git config set notes.rewriteRef "refs/notes/**"