[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdU2e+5Hf3v=C=sE=+25f_A=2=Zzw5rxvcT=hb75VC=iFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 13:55:34 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Hendrik Hamerlinck <hendrik.hamerlinck@...mernet.be>, dwaipayanray1@...il.com,
lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, joe@...ches.com, corbet@....net, apw@...onical.com,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: validate commit tag ordering
Hi Krzysztof,
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 10:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> On 24/07/2025 09:20, Hendrik Hamerlinck wrote:
> > Modified the checkpatch script to ensure that commit tags (e.g.,
> > Signed-off-by, Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, etc.) appear in the
> > correct order according to kernel conventions [1].
>
> These are not the conventions I use for my subsystems and ask others to
> follow, so imposing TIP rules to all maintainers needs broad consensus,
> not (yet) checkpatch.
>
> What's more, I think above TIP rules are contradicting with existing,
> widely used and approved toolset - b4. So no, if you want universal
> tool, please use b4 or whatever b4 defines.
B4 does not follow the proper order:
1. Multiple Reviewed-by tags may be added in a different order
than given,
2. When applying my own patches, b4 adds the given tags before
instead of after my own SoB.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists