From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32653C2D0E4 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E90424655 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="JwXlXRds" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7E90424655 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3560873F4; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JoznQjFbzl7g; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB34186372; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0177C1825; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C4CC0891 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3813B204E2 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eBjdyulrApsb for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg1-f179.google.com (mail-pg1-f179.google.com [209.85.215.179]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A6C3204D2 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f179.google.com with SMTP id j19so4304979pgg.5 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:09:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R3w2s54aHz5GVdYnn+3GAAXtbrGQYuUHs8E7joLnTGY=; b=JwXlXRdsIsWrO8jaBFoJL/O9Vb9g2NmcomTx4ZJGtobYlFVBS7R8O5sP/5nDQ/CzQc fJNomCUaHcDdJCeewey+cvDbiAhSDf3ra1m8ex6hS8jDUxZvXxbZ1Bi61TN+Yyci0Dx2 kdItQ6ySpGU7VDrp5eEgGq9WeqQ0meENd3d5FWEQ67aYrf5ELvfYeG+hhoYx5510PHOE AWEBFlxaVkR4gJQz4bXc0ltBNMvvYnnsarVUz5d+PyjAKw4mGn8x2/jVfYZ59w066p3z LvhDewXCQSWMraJ/AzBkLA0xQHPdErMwJnBMTUT+noSRSp+4zOtKccYPCfw0XfAd35Xt jxhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R3w2s54aHz5GVdYnn+3GAAXtbrGQYuUHs8E7joLnTGY=; b=HoFvjcFUhVTvGT5RrH5H/vmENouRf6fJjI5wAGXo0M6rIAkMbI9trTjE9gfr0w5r4D Xug59gQAvLyIwTyFNpaG3aWv7Xfd4dDDfyRsTYmleG8XdGgoNHoTrBF/8T9uoCqaCTPa 6Yf61eXZ0hdYtZSPg1FimWstJq77kA5J/EcbUE5rUToO+k+bt1Qfi4bdq4ZfExUaAe9D uagfzLaiRkRtgek1m+4z6McjB5dss8icbXyp7ZMnmpqBSTsYKszsYmHOqrEM5QvJQC6f I4QL9SrpDixKULb2ejBfp2Xzlo0qxW2YIbXtB6RDM5XJJCqrC6HT8Jd6JXYDWAtqtGnn iOLw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532bUavt7lN1rdnA4eMLJH1Ru79CC3N/qQA1sFuLv+Nbvs8K5MFq cCIALUYpxS1z0BDP81we8ds1A7GnvBzEjq09 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwshkDg9lyN7D2SY/ue7fpAwsrzAW8bKHAPgT72moDmU/Jq1FnXRzxiFrw4mx9WL12JsFvGGw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:cb51:: with SMTP id m17mr12686179pgi.337.1605794977038; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2402:3a80:40b:78c1:cd74:e812:328:9205? ([2402:3a80:40b:78c1:cd74:e812:328:9205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g2sm28128427pfq.107.2020.11.19.06.09.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:09:36 -0800 (PST) To: Lukas Bulwahn References: <50c8be3c-fceb-255b-43ba-1ce8284ab410@gmail.com> <483df3b1-219c-129e-2c88-5411e012a9e1@gmail.com> <31eeb998-0f1a-5ae2-fd0a-62fd1cf3349b@gmail.com> <050ddb53-33ff-83bc-7f91-b7c2874211f6@gmail.com> <056fae30-efa1-7758-c4bb-04bb90a03f8a@gmail.com> From: Aditya Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:39:32 +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: Content-Language: en-US Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] Fix for BAD_SIGN_OFF: non-standard signature X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" On 19/11/20 11:23 am, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: >>>> Goal 1: Try to map all the non-default signatures to their "standard" >>>> counterpart as much as possible. >>>> >>>> Goal 2: Introduce a few very little signatures to handle those cases >>>> that really cannot be mapped to a non-default signature. >>>> >>>> Provide good rationales that you can defend and provide documentation >>>> for when checkpatch shall explain the fix it proposes. >>>> >>>> Here an example for the first ten cases: >>>> >>>> 1)Debugged-by: 61 -> Codeveloped-by: >>>> >>>> Rationale: Debugging is part of Software Development; so >>>> Codeveloped-by is perfectly fine, even if the contributor did not >>>> create code. >>>> >>>> (alternatively: maybe a new Assisted-by would do here.) >>>> >>>> 2)Requested-by: 48 -> Suggested-by: >>>> >>>> Rationale: In an open-source project, there are "no requests", just >>>> "suggestions" to convince a maintainer to accept your patch. >>>> >>>> 3)Co-authored-by: 43 -> Codeveloped-by: >>>> >>>> Rationale: clear. Codeveloped-by and Co-authored-by are synonyms. >>>> >>>> 4)Originally-by: 39 >>>> >>>> Maybe something like this deserves to be a new tag. There is a >>>> significant difference to codeveloped-by. But that needs discussion. >>>> >>>> 5)Analyzed-by: 22 >>>> >>>> Rationale: Analyzing is part of Software Development; so >>>> Codeveloped-by is perfectly fine, even if the contributor did not >>>> create code. >>>> (alternatively: maybe a new Assisted-by would do here.) >>>> >>>> 6)Bisected-by: 20 >>>> >>>> Difficult... >>>> (maybe a new Assisted-by would do here.) >>>> >>>> 7)Improvements-by: 19 -> Codeveloped-by: >>>> >>>> 8)Generated-by: 17 -> Reported-by: ? So, I checked mailing list. Generated-by is used by the user to quote script(s) and not the person. E.g., Generated-by: scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/kzalloc-simple.cocci Maybe, it should be suggested to delete this tag. What do you think? >>>> >>>> What does generated-by actually mean? >>>> >>>> 9)Noticed-by: 11 -> Reported-by: >>>> >>>> 10)Inspired-by: 11 -> Suggested-by: >>>> >>>> Maybe you can come up with a list for the next twenty and then we >>>> discuss them with Joe Perches and then a larger group? >>>> >> >> This is the list for next 20: >> >> 11)Original-patch-by: 11 -> co-developed-by / Originally-by (a new >> signoff) >> Rationale: I checked mailing list for one of these signoffs. >> Link1: >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20190221122306.1511-1-jonas.rabenstein@studium.uni-erlangen.de/ >> Link2: >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20190307174433.28819-32-acme@kernel.org/ >> >> Here it seems like someone who started working on the patch but >> couldn't complete it, but still has >> significant contribution in the patch. >> Maybe signing off as codeveloper suffices the purpose. I'm not sure though >> > > Agree, that is up for discussion. Either co-developed-by or one new tag. > >> 12)Diagnosed-by: 11 -> Maybe 'Reviewed-by' or 'Acked-by' >> Rationale: Observed a few mailing lists, eg here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190609164128.000227333@linuxfoundation.org/ >> But could not decide as the user is not adding it along the mails, but >> seems like a maintainer. >> > > I do not think Acked-by, maybe co-developed-by or reviewed-by. > >> 13)Based-on-a-patch-by: 8 -> Similar to 'Originally-by' >> >> 14)Verified-by: 8 -> Tested-by >> Rationale: Used by a single user. On reading, mailing list, it seems >> that 'Tested-by' tag might be a suitable alternative. >> Link: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+jURcugFhSt9GGRZELQUCnupOf2Ns96Ao5ZruWfVtq=z_7ytw@mail.gmail.com/ >> > > Agree. > >> 15)Okay-ished-by: 8 -> Acked-by >> Rationale: Used by a single user. On reading, mailing list, it seems >> that 'Acked-by' tag might be a suitable alternative. >> Link: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f06e74e9a38b83ec273196bce727295b828c5870.1507769413.git.rgb@redhat.com/ >> > > Agree. > >> 16)Based-on-patch-by: 7 -> Similar to (13) Based-on-a-patch-by >> > > Agree. > >> 17)Root-caused-by: 6 -> Maybe 'Fixes:' followed by the commit it is >> fixing. >> Rationale: Going through mailing list, it comes up added with the >> patch. So I couldn't be sure >> > > Hmm... you need to show me the cases where this tag is used. > These are some of the examples: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200904120257.464056467@linuxfoundation.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200904120257.464056467@linuxfoundation.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190507053235.29900-78-sashal@kernel.org/ Not sure if it is used as git blame or maybe to define the 'root' of the tree at the time, etc > If the tag is not followed by an identity (name + email), it should > not be a signature tag anyway. > >> 18)Original-by: 6 -> Similar to '(4)Originally-by' >> > > Agree. > >> 19)Acked-for-MFD-by: 6 -> Acked-by: >> > > Agree. > >> 20)Reviewed-off-by: 5 -> Reviewed-by: >> > > Agree. > >> 21)Based-on-patches-by: 5 -> Similar to (13) >> > > Agree. > >> 22)Analysed-by: 5 -> Co-developed-by/Reviewed-by >> Rationale: Similar to '(5)Analyzed-by' >> > > Agree. > >> 23)Based-on-work-by: 5 -> Not sure. Maybe 'Suggested-by' >> > > Or similar to 13? > Yes, agree. >> 24)Proposed-by: 5 -> Maybe 'Suggested-by' >> Rationale: The tag comes up added with the patch,and the user is also >> given the tag 'Signed-off-by', but does not seem to participate in the >> conversation. >> Maybe he is a maintainer, who suggested the patch. >> mailing list: >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/20200501212545.21856-3-sagi@grimberg.me/ >> > > Agree. > >> 25)Reported-and-bisected-by: 4 -> Two different tags: 'Reported-by:' >> and 'Bisected-by' >> > > Agree. > >> 26)Fixed-by: 3 -> Co-developed-by >> Rationale: I observed one of these commit conservations here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1b45ffd1-99bb-4ac1-fb65-0de3e42c1c0a@amd.com/ >> It seems like there was some bug with this patch, which was fixed by >> the user. I guess Co-developed-by should go well as alternative. >> > > Agree. > >> 27)Pointed-out-by: 3 -> Suggested-by >> Rationale: For commit 87bd4c26a6c8 ("clocksource/drivers/tegra: Lower >> clocksource rating for some Tegra's"), this warning occurs, where >> the patch is also 'Acked-by' Peter De Schrijver. So, it seems like he >> is a maintainer who must have suggested these changes >> > > Agree. > >> 28)Suggestions-by: 3 -> Suggested-by >> > > Agree. > >> 29)Celebrated-by: 3 -> Might be suggested to remove >> Rationale: This tag is used for a single commit 3 times, seems like a >> tag used for celebration of a particular patch >> Link: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CANRm+CyonYOzGdXo+D8gr8n04=f=S92QH-HxETKnoGGxhMFREA@mail.gmail.com/ >> > > Agree. Let us suggest deleting such tags. > >> 30)Pointed-at-by: 2 -> Suggested-by >> Rationale: One of these tags is named for Greg Kroah-Hartman >> , who is probably a maintainer. >> Here, the user might just want to acknowledge him for his suggestion, >> so 'Suggested-by' seems appropriate. >> > > Agree. > >> What do you think? >> > > Can you start to implement a patch that creates the basic logic to let > checkpatch.pl suggest the alternatives for those 30 cases above. > Okay. One doubt though, do I need to create a separate patch for edit distance fix? I am planning to create a hash for these typos(which do not fulfill edit distance criteria) in checkpatch.pl itself. What do you think? > Also, it might be good if checkpatch.pl also provides the explanation > why that alternative is proposed (when it is not totally obvious). > > Can you also summarize which of the 30 cases need a further discussion with Joe? > Debugged-by: co-developed-by/reviewed-by/new tag Originally-by: Co-developed-by / maybe a new tag Bisected-by Diagnosed-by Root-caused-by: not sure if it is used as git blame or maybe to define the 'root' of the tree at the time, etc > Lukas > _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees