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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20250114-olivine-adder-of-weather-1eaabf@meerkat>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:26:44 -0500
From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
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, Jan 14, 2025 at 07:29:14PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > 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?

Yes, I expect Linus will reject commits that carry that trailer on the exact
grounds that I brought up. He stated multiple times that a commit message
should only carry trailers that explain the context and the reason for that
change.

-K