From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753488Ab1JZXoL (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:44:11 -0400 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:54671 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753398Ab1JZXoJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:44:09 -0400 Message-ID: <1319672648.21924.26.camel@Joe-Laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve error message for p1-check From: Joe Perches To: David Rientjes Cc: Wolfram Sang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron , Andy Whitcroft Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:44:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1319027583-17842-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> <1319669467.21924.18.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1319670886.21924.22.camel@Joe-Laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 16:34 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Joe Perches wrote: > > > So we need a combination of the two approaches then, it makes sense to > > > only emit the warning if the patched file exists in both prefixes. > > I don't think so. What about something like: > > $ diff -urN kernel/foo~ kernel/foo > patch > > I think we should only care about the patched file,. > I mean it only makes sense if both prefixes exist (otherwise patch and > git-apply will assume it's not a -p0 patch). I think we should not care about the prefixes at all, only whether or not the patched file exists.