Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <e8ad8b03-70c5-03b5-3e48-61bf884ebb27@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:28:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
To:     Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Kai_Wasserb=c3=a4ch?= <kai@dev.carbon-project.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, mptcp@lists.linux.dev
References: <20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v2-0-f4a417861f6d@tessares.net>
 <20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v2-2-f4a417861f6d@tessares.net>
 <2f96048b-c580-625f-6fc7-06237292efe3@leemhuis.info>
 <bf7546ab-6c76-05b0-4539-f4aa854ffae9@tessares.net>
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] checkpatch: allow Closes tags with links
In-Reply-To: <bf7546ab-6c76-05b0-4539-f4aa854ffae9@tessares.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27.03.23 15:06, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
> 
> On 25/03/2023 07:25, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 24.03.23 19:52, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> As a follow-up of the previous patch modifying the documentation to
>>> allow using the "Closes:" tag, checkpatch.pl is updated accordingly.
>>>
>>> checkpatch.pl now mentions the "Closes:" tag between brackets to express
>>> the fact it should be used only if it makes sense.
>>>
>>> While at it, checkpatch.pl will not complain if the "Closes" tag is used
>>> with a "long" line, similar to what is done with the "Link" tag.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>  
>>> -# check if Reported-by: is followed by a Link:
>>> +# check if Reported-by: is followed by a Link: (or Closes:) tag
>>
>> Small detail: why the parenthesis here? Why no simply "check if
>> Reported-by: is followed by a either Link: or Closes: tag". Same below...
>>
>>>  			if ($sign_off =~ /^reported(?:|-and-tested)-by:$/i) {
>>>  				if (!defined $lines[$linenr]) {
>>>  					WARN("BAD_REPORTED_BY_LINK",
>>> -					     "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Link: to the report\n" . $herecurr . $rawlines[$linenr] . "\n");
>>> -				} elsif ($rawlines[$linenr] !~ m{^link:\s*https?://}i) {
>>> +					     "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Link: (or Closes:) to the report\n" . $herecurr . $rawlines[$linenr] . "\n");
>>
>> ...here, where users actually get to see this and might wonder why it's
>> written like that, without getting any answer.
> 
> I tried to explain that in the cover-letter but maybe I should add an
> additional comment in the code: checkpatch.pl now mentions the "Closes:"
> tag between parenthesis to express the fact it should be used only if it
> makes sense. I didn't find any other short ways to express that but I'm
> open to suggestions.
> 
> Now as discussed on patch 1/2, if the "Closes:" tag can be used with any
> public link, we should definitively remove the parenthesis here and
> probably below (see "Check for odd tags before a URI/URL") as well.

Well, ymmd, but if we go down that route I'd say this code should
suggest to use "Closes:" all the time (or primarily).

Ciao, Thorsten