Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <f21acc492ab37acc42390abffb61aed370a22118.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add fix option for MISSING_SIGN_OFF
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 2020 07:50:44 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2b640e8b-69dc-2ade-3b9f-fae14eed1b17@gmail.com>
References: <20201111090143.9230-1-yashsri421@gmail.com>
         <CAKXUXMzg6Wg310s-N8hWOEiXFkg1ZAga+NkFQkFQ5_bS16TLnA@mail.gmail.com>
         <2b640e8b-69dc-2ade-3b9f-fae14eed1b17@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2020-11-11 at 16:39 +0530, Aditya wrote:
> On 11/11/20 4:00 pm, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:01 AM Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Currently checkpatch warns us if there is no 'Signed-off-by' line
> > > for the patch.
> > > 
> > > E.g., running checkpatch on commit 9ac060a708e0 ("leaking_addresses:
> > > Completely remove --version flag") reports this error:
> > > 
> > > ERROR: Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)
> > > 
> > > Provide a fix by adding a Signed-off-by line corresponding to the author
> > > of the patch before the patch separator line. Also avoid this error for
> > > the commits where some typo is present in the sign off.
[]
> > I think it should still warn about a Missing Signed-off-by: even when
> > we know there is a $non_standard_signature. So, checkpatch simply
> > emits two warnings; that is okay in that case.
> > 
> > It is just that our evaluation shows that the provided fix option
> > should not be suggested when there is a $non_standard_signature
> > because we actually would predict that there is typo in the intended
> > Signed-off-by tag and the fix that checkpatch would suggest would not
> > be adequate.
> > 
> > Joe, what is your opinion?
> > 
> > Aditya, it should not be too difficult to implement the rule that way, right?
> > 
> 
> No, I'd probably just have to add the check with $fix, instead of with
> $signoff

I think it does not matter much which is chosen.

The bad signed-off-by: line would still need to be corrected one
way or another and the added signed-off-line is also possibly
incorrect so it could need to be modified or deleted.