checkpatch --file warns about p0 patch

checkpatch --file warns about p0 patch

[Mike Rapoport]

When running checkpatch.pl with --file option it warns about -p0 patch:

./scripts/checkpatch.pl --file ./drivers/rtc/rtc-v3020.c
WARNING: patch prefix '.' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 263 lines checked

./drivers/rtc/rtc-v3020.c has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

I hope this is the fix that'll work:

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 45eb0ae..1869388 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ sub process {
 			$realfile =~ s@^([^/]*)/@@;

 			$p1_prefix = $1;
-			if ($tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
+			if (!$file && $tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
 				WARN("patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch\n");
 			}



-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: checkpatch --file warns about p0 patch

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:20:21PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> When running checkpatch.pl with --file option it warns about -p0 patch:
> 
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --file ./drivers/rtc/rtc-v3020.c
> WARNING: patch prefix '.' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch
> 
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 263 lines checked
> 
> ./drivers/rtc/rtc-v3020.c has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
> are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> 
> I hope this is the fix that'll work:
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 45eb0ae..1869388 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ sub process {
>  			$realfile =~ s@^([^/]*)/@@;
> 
>  			$p1_prefix = $1;
> -			if ($tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
> +			if (!$file && $tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
>  				WARN("patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch\n");
>  			}
> 
> 
> 
> -- 

Hmm, that should already be fixed in the version Andrew Morton has.
Could you test with v0.28 and confirm its already fixed?


  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-v0.28

-apw

Re: checkpatch --file warns about p0 patch

[Mike Rapoport]

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:20:21PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> When running checkpatch.pl with --file option it warns about -p0 patch:
>>
>> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --file ./drivers/rtc/rtc-v3020.c
>> WARNING: patch prefix '.' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch
>>
>> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 263 lines checked
>>
>> ./drivers/rtc/rtc-v3020.c has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
>> are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
>> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
>>
>> I hope this is the fix that'll work:
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index 45eb0ae..1869388 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ sub process {
>>  			$realfile =~ s@^([^/]*)/@@;
>>
>>  			$p1_prefix = $1;
>> -			if ($tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
>> +			if (!$file && $tree && $p1_prefix ne '' && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
>>  				WARN("patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch\n");
>>  			}
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
> 
> Hmm, that should already be fixed in the version Andrew Morton has.

I've run the version from Linus tree.

> Could you test with v0.28 and confirm its already fixed?

v0.28 works Ok.

> 
>   http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-v0.28
> 
> -apw
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: checkpatch --file warns about p0 patch

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:43:12 +0000
Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:

> Hmm, that should already be fixed in the version Andrew Morton has.

Hmm, all of these:

checkpatch-make-in_atomic-ok-in-the-core.patch
checkpatch-do-not-warn-about-p0-patches-when-checking-files.patch
checkpatch-correctly-handle-type-spacing-in-the-face-of-modifiers.patch
checkpatch-pointer-type-star-may-have-modifiers-following.patch
checkpatch-a-modifier-is-not-an-identifier-at-the-end-of-a-type.patch
checkpatch-extend-attribute-testing-to-all-modifiers.patch
checkpatch-add-__ref-as-a-sparse-modifier.patch
checkpatch-version-028.patch

apart from perhaps checkpatch-add-__ref-as-a-sparse-modifier.patch look
like bugfixes.  So I suppose we should slip them into 2.6.29, yes?

Re: checkpatch --file warns about p0 patch

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 03:04:05PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:43:12 +0000
> Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, that should already be fixed in the version Andrew Morton has.
> 
> Hmm, all of these:
> 
> checkpatch-make-in_atomic-ok-in-the-core.patch
> checkpatch-do-not-warn-about-p0-patches-when-checking-files.patch
> checkpatch-correctly-handle-type-spacing-in-the-face-of-modifiers.patch
> checkpatch-pointer-type-star-may-have-modifiers-following.patch
> checkpatch-a-modifier-is-not-an-identifier-at-the-end-of-a-type.patch
> checkpatch-extend-attribute-testing-to-all-modifiers.patch
> checkpatch-add-__ref-as-a-sparse-modifier.patch
> checkpatch-version-028.patch
> 
> apart from perhaps checkpatch-add-__ref-as-a-sparse-modifier.patch look
> like bugfixes.  So I suppose we should slip them into 2.6.29, yes?

Yes those are all bugfixes.  If we can get them in that would be good.

-apw