linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c5b86849-b09d-4e81-b357-53f511e087ae@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:41:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
 Akhilesh Patil <akhilesh@...iitb.ac.in>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] checkpatch: Don't warn on "orhapned" DT schema
 file

On 27/10/2025 10:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 10:25:58AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/10/2025 10:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Currently checkpatch warns is the DT schema file is absent in MAINTAINERS.
>>> However the DT schema files are self-contained in this sense and
>>> have embedded information about maintainers of it. This is a requirement.
>>> Hence, avoid checkpatch warning about it.
>>>
>>> Requested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
>>
>> No, that's not true.
>>
>> First, there is no such tag.
> 
> No, that's not true.
> 
> $ git log --oneline --grep ^Requested-by: | wc -l


No, you do like this:
git grep Requested-by
and then find it in the list of approved tags.

> 357
> 
>> Second, I never requested it.
>>
>> NAK
> 
> Fair enough, I'll drop the tag.


It's not even solving the problem you wanted. You claimed there is some
sort of problem that maintainer update is one at last patch of patchset.
I claimed that there is no, because it is standard and completely fine
way of doing things and whatever checkpatch is reported is just false
positive.

You did not fix that false positive.

Best regards,
Krzysztof