Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA3EC433F5 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239558AbiAKMGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 07:06:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51956 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238692AbiAKMGd (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 07:06:33 -0500 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk (bhuna.collabora.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:25:2eeb:e3e3]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E23E3C06173F for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 04:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2a00:c281:14a3:8100:a909:23ff:b834:d3b1] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:c281:14a3:8100:a909:23ff:b834:d3b1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dafna) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D50C51F44341; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:06:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1641902791; bh=kRoLZoDn7anbUJOPv8KDNgu67NtycySGqdoUYDHej6w=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SD27BulwCwAOuSZwhDZ7Wh19ADlUE6jLQVXKC8eRr3ElJx74/Q7WH6uJD2Nf+AAKl d4SK9fccjRpn0CUJpn9x30q2qxN3lbrnDm6qh8uAB9HZnSoJVTVLBUBt6JD5nzNLjO NIPKXPZWxcWFcIEgvqiztoo7G5OkETpRb7hRada2fL5kvE7AaOykuylhO1XT9fjttK CzOyp1hImlRoM/ul+OK00cdrpJH/6h9zCGIXZOLsB+KLaGdTPbyqfA8Z8QT8Kd73E5 IBG+0izeqjZt6sv8mNMQA4G0vvy02/WGXYyNXmsZD8yRfbvSCYYGbQq1wRtiKQZ0nk dYx6HPf2OehWA== Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: warn for p0 patch only if prefix is not b To: Lukas Bulwahn Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernel@collabora.com, Andy Whitcroft , Joe Perches , Dwaipayan Ray References: <20220110200529.18601-1-dafna.hirschfeld@collabora.com> From: Dafna Hirschfeld Message-ID: <9ea178f0-aa8e-5311-17fc-d13511838655@collabora.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 14:06:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11.01.22 13:27, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:47 AM Dafna Hirschfeld > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11.01.22 12:18, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: >>> Dafna, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:06 PM Dafna Hirschfeld >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It might be that file 'b' happens to exit. In that >>>> case, if the prefix is also 'b' (which is the >>>> common case) we get the falsely warning: >>>> >>>> patch prefix 'b' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch >>>> >>>> So warn only if prefix is not 'b' >>>> >>> >>> The checkpatch script that is maintained here is really only intended >>> for its use in the kernel development. You may use checkpatch anywhere >>> else, but any changes that increase complexity for those other use >>> cases is really difficult to argue for inclusion in the kernel >>> repository. The checkpatch script currently is already large and >>> complex enough and all rules need to be understood as rough >>> heuristics, not as strict rules. >>> >>> So, can you point to a kernel repository where there is actually a >>> file 'b' included? On a quick scan, I could not find a file 'b' in the >>> current trees of the repositories on my machine. >>> >>> I am just letting you know about what I have observed; I do not decide >>> on the inclusion of this patch, though. >> >> Hi, a 'b' file might make it to the source folder as an untracked file. >> This actually happened to me since I was too lazy to give it a meaningful name. >> Then I got this warning and it took me some time to figure out what is the problem. >> > > Well, but you run checkpatch.pl on a patch, right? So, you need to add > the file explicitly with git (where you notice adding a file called b, > which probably is really not a good name), you create a git commit > (where that is pointed out again), then create a patch from that > (which you may manually look at again) and then run checkpatch.pl > before you submit it (again, submitting a patch with a file 'b' is > probably a good reason to rethink your submission). Hi , no, the 'b' file is left untracked. It is easily reproducible, inside a kernel source repo do: touch b # These two commands will both trigger the warning. ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -g HEAD ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict 0001-some-random-patch.patch > > If it helps, you can add some documentation on the PATCH_PREFIX rule > in the checkpatch documentation at > ./Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst. Especially, you can note the > situation you encountered there, e.g., that adding files with explicit > name 'a' or 'b' may make this rule trigger. If that documentation of > the rule is helpful, I will ack that documentation patch and request > inclusion of it. I can do that as well if you think it is better. Thanks, Dafna > > Lukas > >> Thanks, >> Dafna >> >>> >>> Lukas >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld >>>> --- >>>> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>>> index 1784921c645d..72263b142e39 100755 >>>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>>> @@ -2821,7 +2821,7 @@ sub process { >>>> $in_commit_log = 0; >>>> >>>> $p1_prefix = $1; >>>> - if (!$file && $tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && >>>> + if (!$file && $tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && $p1_prefix ne 'b' && >>>> -e "$root/$p1_prefix") { >>>> WARN("PATCH_PREFIX", >>>> "patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch\n"); >>> >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >>>>