From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02B9A55; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 10:12:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754129527; cv=none; b=A6Cgnek1CQ8h5zfVKAO4SfVUqCylAvhzF4r5iZvrH1evJaVpXs3oDPxlhDB6Rj9cd5BdNth183UvH4LMCWROXjOFQxmZKRBht3LVy1i6v4FNGwEAzYzzodsGVejpaTaXOawVFK4mpYDHpvqa7XAjAqGZYHBCuhwI5y95BFdBykw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754129527; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RcIxv8CNranSikYqIfYh6Wu6F4BH/n9VDoB+wiP/7uo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fTOe13gLVaF9hQXSBIyY23SUBaHOmr3SduCY7qogS8SmmKR2ZNLzfbDhSWbUV4UHO/tQsd8uprwB/kF7qFN3CnTg5/SZTHa8EY8ufn83LqWAglkfLxilPWiOcBzOWw9YTN2TxHNG4Vomk377+m4c/4eIAkiljKXgQiPQP8b9opg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kNyps3Sh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kNyps3Sh" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BFFAC4CEEF; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 10:12:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754129527; bh=RcIxv8CNranSikYqIfYh6Wu6F4BH/n9VDoB+wiP/7uo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kNyps3ShYsIWdrdiIip+VBES7YtLPsL4ackBY330zHkCdbbkfgPh/m4Y+rdFZ+ju+ UshLLaq2/xnvuAOnDCYqd9GFlMMMCi8Q///A30JmhIqA8HOGSUxDz+oSoK4jM9dzyx t3T7BKbSRkt5l9DEJ9q98DAp+4bpI0CvXrkNsLqhjJXz4AO0S4I3zd2L8Gv4ZSTEXd SjIqNpr5oFZZvCwwYNrIvwm8Qgmc+62xfsSFIJCtaVJSaQ+Ni/OasmUFgHJwWGOhv3 oe4SgVl/7YfIX2+ktdbRabHJCr/aDZt12QY7JW8ZQhUyELbWmR0bt8Pinf1ecsA80y jL9E/wpl0LjHA== Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:12:00 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Jani Nikula Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Geert Uytterhoeven , Hendrik Hamerlinck , dwaipayanray1@gmail.com, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, joe@perches.com, corbet@lwn.net, apw@canonical.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Konstantin Ryabitsev Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: validate commit tag ordering Message-ID: <20250802121200.665ea309@foz.lan> In-Reply-To: <3e9106d35d41a044adeadffeea32fa096c9e1370@intel.com> References: <20250724072032.118554-1-hendrik.hamerlinck@hammernet.be> <53eb0068-008b-48e6-9b92-d92de2ed4fc9@kernel.org> <45f0995f-17ac-45a3-8bc0-3b276ee91a9d@kernel.org> <3e9106d35d41a044adeadffeea32fa096c9e1370@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Em Fri, 01 Aug 2025 10:55:55 +0300 Jani Nikula escreveu: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2025, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 31/07/2025 13:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> B4 does not follow the proper order: > > > > There is no "proper order" in terms of absolute facts. > > Let's just decide whatever order b4 uses *is* the proper order, and save > ourselves endless hours of debating! :p I don't think it makes sense to have a "proper order" verified on checkpatch, as some tags may appear on different places. For instance, the custody chain was designed to have SoBs appearing in different places: - author(s) SoB together co-developed-by are usually the first ones; - then patches may have been reviewed, tested, acked or passed on some other trees, gaining tags like tested-by, R-B, A-B, SoB, Cc; - the subsystem maintainer will add his SoB in the end. non-custody chain tags, like fixes, closes, reported-by... usually comes first, but I don't think we need to enforce an specific order. Link, for instance, could be used on different places, with different purposes. At least for me, the only part that shall really follow a proper order is the custody chain: It has to follow how the patch was handled, from the authors at the top up to the maintainers at the bottom. Thanks, Mauro