[PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Chris Wilson]

Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
(or with --review).

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
 my $quiet = 0;
 my $tree = 1;
 my $chk_signoff = 1;
+my $chk_review = 0;
 my $chk_patch = 1;
 my $tst_only;
 my $emacs = 0;
@@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
   -q, --quiet                quiet
   --no-tree                  run without a kernel tree
   --no-signoff               do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
+  --review                   check for 'Reviewed-by' line
   --patch                    treat FILE as patchfile (default)
   --emacs                    emacs compile window format
   --terse                    one line per report
@@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
 	'q|quiet+'	=> \$quiet,
 	'tree!'		=> \$tree,
 	'signoff!'	=> \$chk_signoff,
+	'review!'	=> \$chk_review,
 	'patch!'	=> \$chk_patch,
 	'emacs!'	=> \$emacs,
 	'terse!'	=> \$terse,
@@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
 
 list_types(0) if ($list_types);
 
-$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
+$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
 $check_orig = $check;
 
 my $exit = 0;
@@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
 }
 
 $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
+$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
 
 my @rawlines = ();
 my @lines = ();
@@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
 
 	our $clean = 1;
 	my $signoff = 0;
+	my $review = 0;
 	my $is_patch = 0;
 	my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
 	my $in_commit_log = 0;		#Scanning lines before patch
@@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
 			$in_commit_log = 0;
 		}
 
+# Check the patch for any review:
+		if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
+			$review++;
+			$in_commit_log = 0;
+		}
+
 # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
 # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
 		if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
@@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
 		ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
 		      "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
 	}
+	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
+		ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
+		      "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
+	}
 
 	print report_dump();
 	if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
-- 
2.10.1

Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Jani Nikula]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> (or with --review).

Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)

BR,
Jani.


>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
>  my $quiet = 0;
>  my $tree = 1;
>  my $chk_signoff = 1;
> +my $chk_review = 0;
>  my $chk_patch = 1;
>  my $tst_only;
>  my $emacs = 0;
> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
>    -q, --quiet                quiet
>    --no-tree                  run without a kernel tree
>    --no-signoff               do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
> +  --review                   check for 'Reviewed-by' line
>    --patch                    treat FILE as patchfile (default)
>    --emacs                    emacs compile window format
>    --terse                    one line per report
> @@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
>  	'q|quiet+'	=> \$quiet,
>  	'tree!'		=> \$tree,
>  	'signoff!'	=> \$chk_signoff,
> +	'review!'	=> \$chk_review,
>  	'patch!'	=> \$chk_patch,
>  	'emacs!'	=> \$emacs,
>  	'terse!'	=> \$terse,
> @@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
>  
>  list_types(0) if ($list_types);
>  
> -$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
> +$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
>  $check_orig = $check;
>  
>  my $exit = 0;
> @@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
>  }
>  
>  $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
> +$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
>  
>  my @rawlines = ();
>  my @lines = ();
> @@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
>  
>  	our $clean = 1;
>  	my $signoff = 0;
> +	my $review = 0;
>  	my $is_patch = 0;
>  	my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
>  	my $in_commit_log = 0;		#Scanning lines before patch
> @@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
>  			$in_commit_log = 0;
>  		}
>  
> +# Check the patch for any review:
> +		if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
> +			$review++;
> +			$in_commit_log = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
>  # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
>  		if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> @@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
>  		ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
>  		      "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>  	}
> +	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
> +		ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
> +		      "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
> +	}
>  
>  	print report_dump();
>  	if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Jani Nikula]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> (or with --review).

Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)

BR,
Jani.


>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
>  my $quiet = 0;
>  my $tree = 1;
>  my $chk_signoff = 1;
> +my $chk_review = 0;
>  my $chk_patch = 1;
>  my $tst_only;
>  my $emacs = 0;
> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
>    -q, --quiet                quiet
>    --no-tree                  run without a kernel tree
>    --no-signoff               do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
> +  --review                   check for 'Reviewed-by' line
>    --patch                    treat FILE as patchfile (default)
>    --emacs                    emacs compile window format
>    --terse                    one line per report
> @@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
>  	'q|quiet+'	=> \$quiet,
>  	'tree!'		=> \$tree,
>  	'signoff!'	=> \$chk_signoff,
> +	'review!'	=> \$chk_review,
>  	'patch!'	=> \$chk_patch,
>  	'emacs!'	=> \$emacs,
>  	'terse!'	=> \$terse,
> @@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
>  
>  list_types(0) if ($list_types);
>  
> -$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
> +$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
>  $check_orig = $check;
>  
>  my $exit = 0;
> @@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
>  }
>  
>  $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
> +$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
>  
>  my @rawlines = ();
>  my @lines = ();
> @@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
>  
>  	our $clean = 1;
>  	my $signoff = 0;
> +	my $review = 0;
>  	my $is_patch = 0;
>  	my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
>  	my $in_commit_log = 0;		#Scanning lines before patch
> @@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
>  			$in_commit_log = 0;
>  		}
>  
> +# Check the patch for any review:
> +		if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
> +			$review++;
> +			$in_commit_log = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
>  # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
>  		if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> @@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
>  		ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
>  		      "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>  	}
> +	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
> +		ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
> +		      "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
> +	}
>  
>  	print report_dump();
>  	if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Chris Wilson]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> > have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> > encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> > enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> > (or with --review).
> 
> Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
> addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
> intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)

I do believe we should be keeping the (our, my?) notion of review out of
the signed-off-by tag (which imo is a legal statement about the
provenance of a patch), and so yes we shouldn't be pushing patches that
haven't gone through the rite of fire and been seconded by someone else.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Chris Wilson]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> > have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> > encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> > enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> > (or with --review).
> 
> Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
> addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
> intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)

I do believe we should be keeping the (our, my?) notion of review out of
the signed-off-by tag (which imo is a legal statement about the
provenance of a patch), and so yes we shouldn't be pushing patches that
haven't gone through the rite of fire and been seconded by someone else.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/14529/
State : warning

== Summary ==

Series 14529v1 scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/14529/revisions/1/mbox/

Test drv_module_reload_basic:
                skip       -> PASS       (fi-skl-6260u)
Test kms_flip:
        Subgroup basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank:
                pass       -> SKIP       (fi-byt-n2820)

fi-bdw-5557u     total:239  pass:224  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:15 
fi-bsw-n3050     total:239  pass:199  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:40 
fi-bxt-t5700     total:239  pass:211  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28 
fi-byt-j1900     total:239  pass:211  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28 
fi-byt-n2820     total:239  pass:206  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:33 
fi-hsw-4770      total:239  pass:219  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20 
fi-hsw-4770r     total:239  pass:218  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:21 
fi-ilk-650       total:239  pass:185  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:54 
fi-ivb-3520m     total:239  pass:216  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23 
fi-ivb-3770      total:239  pass:216  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23 
fi-kbl-7200u     total:239  pass:217  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:22 
fi-skl-6260u     total:239  pass:225  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14 
fi-skl-6700hq    total:239  pass:218  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:21 
fi-skl-6700k     total:239  pass:217  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:21 
fi-skl-6770hq    total:239  pass:225  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14 
fi-snb-2520m     total:239  pass:206  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:33 
fi-snb-2600      total:239  pass:205  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:34 

c15686c36cae1cac4af0807213a9bb4bf79b8cdb drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-10m-28d-12h-29m-33s UTC integration manifest
03a5b8e scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/Patchwork_2849/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 13:49 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> (or with --review).

I rather dislike this as it imposes a rule outside
of what's documented in SubmittingPatches.

Ideally, please keep a private version of this.

And unless and until SubmittingPatches is updated,
please keep this separate from --strict.

> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
>  my $quiet = 0;
>  my $tree = 1;
>  my $chk_signoff = 1;
> +my $chk_review = 0;
>  my $chk_patch = 1;
>  my $tst_only;
>  my $emacs = 0;
> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
>    -q, --quiet                quiet
>    --no-tree                  run without a kernel tree
>    --no-signoff               do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
> +  --review                   check for 'Reviewed-by' line
>    --patch                    treat FILE as patchfile (default)
>    --emacs                    emacs compile window format
>    --terse                    one line per report
> @@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
>  	'q|quiet+'	=> \$quiet,
>  	'tree!'		=> \$tree,
>  	'signoff!'	=> \$chk_signoff,
> +	'review!'	=> \$chk_review,
>  	'patch!'	=> \$chk_patch,
>  	'emacs!'	=> \$emacs,
>  	'terse!'	=> \$terse,
> @@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
>  
>  list_types(0) if ($list_types);
>  
> -$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
> +$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
>  $check_orig = $check;
>  
>  my $exit = 0;
> @@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
>  }
>  
>  $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
> +$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
>  
>  my @rawlines = ();
>  my @lines = ();
> @@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
>  
>  	our $clean = 1;
>  	my $signoff = 0;
> +	my $review = 0;
>  	my $is_patch = 0;
>  	my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
>  	my $in_commit_log = 0;		#Scanning lines before patch
> @@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
>  			$in_commit_log = 0;
>  		}
>  
> +# Check the patch for any review:
> +		if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
> +			$review++;
> +			$in_commit_log = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
>  # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
>  		if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> @@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
>  		ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
>  		      "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>  	}
> +	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
> +		ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
> +		      "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
> +	}
>  
>  	print report_dump();
>  	if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 13:49 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> (or with --review).

I rather dislike this as it imposes a rule outside
of what's documented in SubmittingPatches.

Ideally, please keep a private version of this.

And unless and until SubmittingPatches is updated,
please keep this separate from --strict.

> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
>  my $quiet = 0;
>  my $tree = 1;
>  my $chk_signoff = 1;
> +my $chk_review = 0;
>  my $chk_patch = 1;
>  my $tst_only;
>  my $emacs = 0;
> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
>    -q, --quiet                quiet
>    --no-tree                  run without a kernel tree
>    --no-signoff               do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
> +  --review                   check for 'Reviewed-by' line
>    --patch                    treat FILE as patchfile (default)
>    --emacs                    emacs compile window format
>    --terse                    one line per report
> @@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
>  	'q|quiet+'	=> \$quiet,
>  	'tree!'		=> \$tree,
>  	'signoff!'	=> \$chk_signoff,
> +	'review!'	=> \$chk_review,
>  	'patch!'	=> \$chk_patch,
>  	'emacs!'	=> \$emacs,
>  	'terse!'	=> \$terse,
> @@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
>  
>  list_types(0) if ($list_types);
>  
> -$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
> +$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
>  $check_orig = $check;
>  
>  my $exit = 0;
> @@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
>  }
>  
>  $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
> +$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
>  
>  my @rawlines = ();
>  my @lines = ();
> @@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
>  
>  	our $clean = 1;
>  	my $signoff = 0;
> +	my $review = 0;
>  	my $is_patch = 0;
>  	my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
>  	my $in_commit_log = 0;		#Scanning lines before patch
> @@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
>  			$in_commit_log = 0;
>  		}
>  
> +# Check the patch for any review:
> +		if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
> +			$review++;
> +			$in_commit_log = 0;
> +		}
> +
>  # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
>  # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
>  		if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> @@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
>  		ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
>  		      "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>  	}
> +	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
> +		ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
> +		      "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
> +	}
>  
>  	print report_dump();
>  	if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {