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: <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for
 Non-standard signature
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com>, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:33:29 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20201123172430.12854-1-yashsri421@gmail.com>
References: <CAKXUXMx8siSm67jkBP_r+OKyKALfT2EDcX_SfX7JGBy3YisXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <20201123172430.12854-1-yashsri421@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 Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:54 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature
> styles.

I think this proposed change is unnecessary.
 
> This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags,
> e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed the use of following incorrect
> signature tags, which may seem correct, but are not standard:

Standards are useful, but standards are not constraints.

> 1) Requested-by (count: 48) => Suggested-by
> Rationale: In an open-source project, there are no 'requests', just
> 'suggestions' to convince a maintainer to accept your patch

There's nothing really wrong with some non-standard signatures.
And I think leaving humor like brown-paper-bag-by: is useful.

Just telling people that they are using a non-standard signature
I think is enough.