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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for
 Non-standard signature
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <CAKXUXMx8siSm67jkBP_r+OKyKALfT2EDcX_SfX7JGBy3YisXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201123172430.12854-1-yashsri421@gmail.com>
 <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com>
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b3feb74-5f1d-ee1a-2e1a-8a5f803bed63@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:42:25 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/11/20 11:03 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.
> 

Hi Joe
Thanks for reviewing. We were also planning to provide fix for certain
non-standard signature warnings due to typo mistake in the signoffs,
using edit distance approach. These signatures were probably not
intended by the user.
E.g. for signatures like: 'Reviwed-by:', 'Singed-off-by:',etc.
Here is the list I have generated for non-standard signatures with
edit distance of 2 or less along with their count (over v4.13..v5.8).
(Among total 539 Non-standard signature warnings, warnings caused by
typo mistakes are 85 in number):

https://github.com/AdityaSrivast/kernel-tasks/blob/master/random/non_standard_signature/less_than2/signs_freq.txt

This is the predicted correct signoffs we are getting (for less than
or equal to 2):
https://github.com/AdityaSrivast/kernel-tasks/blob/master/random/non_standard_signature/less_than_3.txt


The reason I have chosen 2 as threshold is that count 3 onwards, the
results start deviating.
List for edit distance 3:
https://github.com/AdityaSrivast/kernel-tasks/blob/master/random/non_standard_signature/equal_3.txt

What do you think?

Thanks
Aditya