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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 98234C64E7A for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (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 8A04C20575 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8A04C20575 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=perches.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 fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FE28693F; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXnVAkJaX3PD; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1799A8698F; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1090C0859; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0925FC0052 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7F287EEE for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ZQPv+ohIeaC for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0004.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.4]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C943E87EC2 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB6F1802E8DD for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5018224D8D; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: jump74_6009439273ac X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1893 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.128.180]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: From: Joe Perches To: Aditya Srivastava Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:24:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201201112931.11192-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> References: <20201201112931.11192-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for 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 Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:59 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote: > Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature > styles. > > 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: I'm not a fan of this patch. There is already a "non-standard" signature warning for all of these cases since 2012, predating the range of this retrospective evaluation by over 5 years and yet these existing commits have been accepted. The value in actual standardization and effectively requiring specific signature style tags is quite low. Anyone that signed a thing a particular way should be free to sign the thing as they choose. Most of these warnings would also still be in the tree in the future in new patches as running checkpatch without it emitting a message of any type isn't a requirement nor should checkpatch use actually be required workflow. _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees 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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 9D871C71156 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56179207FF for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404012AbgLARZa (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:25:30 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0148.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.148]:60596 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391673AbgLARZ2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:25:28 -0500 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5018224D8D; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: jump74_6009439273ac X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1893 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.128.180]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature From: Joe Perches To: Aditya Srivastava Cc: lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:24:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201201112931.11192-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> References: <20201201112931.11192-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:59 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote: > Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature > styles. > > 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: I'm not a fan of this patch. There is already a "non-standard" signature warning for all of these cases since 2012, predating the range of this retrospective evaluation by over 5 years and yet these existing commits have been accepted. The value in actual standardization and effectively requiring specific signature style tags is quite low. Anyone that signed a thing a particular way should be free to sign the thing as they choose. Most of these warnings would also still be in the tree in the future in new patches as running checkpatch without it emitting a message of any type isn't a requirement nor should checkpatch use actually be required workflow.