checkpatch changes for 4.16

checkpatch changes for 4.16

[Tobin C. Harding]

Hi Joe,

Can I please bother you with a maintainer question.  I know everyone is
super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
and all that.

I have the checkpatch set queued ready to do a GIT PULL to Linus.  My
concern is that the subject line may not be unique if checkpatch changes
are coming in from various trees this merge window. I have tagged the
pull request with

	checkpatch-4.16-rc1

with the subject line

	[GIT PULL] checkpatch changes for 4.16-rc1

If there are no other changes to checkpatch going in this merge window
then this issue dissolves.  If there are, should I add something to the
subject line to ensure it is unique?

Thanks and sorry for targeting you with this question, I'm sure you have
better things to do also.

	Tobin

Re: checkpatch changes for 4.16

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Can I please bother you with a maintainer question.  I know everyone is
> super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
> and all that.
> 
> I have the checkpatch set queued ready to do a GIT PULL to Linus.  My
> concern is that the subject line may not be unique if checkpatch changes
> are coming in from various trees this merge window. I have tagged the
> pull request with

Personally, I think you could let Andrew Morton pick them
up as very few patches for checkpatch go in any other way.

What patches are you submitting again?

Is it just

commit 7b1924a1d930 ("vsprintf: add printk specifier %px")

or is there something else?

Re: checkpatch changes for 4.16

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> > 
> > Can I please bother you with a maintainer question.  I know everyone is
> > super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> > doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
> > and all that.
> > 
> > I have the checkpatch set queued ready to do a GIT PULL to Linus.  My
> > concern is that the subject line may not be unique if checkpatch changes
> > are coming in from various trees this merge window. I have tagged the
> > pull request with
> 
> Personally, I think you could let Andrew Morton pick them
> up as very few patches for checkpatch go in any other way.

ok no worries.  I'll leave it until a few rc's are out then send to Andrew.

> What patches are you submitting again?
> 
> Is it just
> 
> commit 7b1924a1d930 ("vsprintf: add printk specifier %px")
> 
> or is there something else?

d94e97bc9ede checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_real()
d0e27c47f5b9 checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_here()
986b3b5b7d7a checkpatch: warn for use of %px
26c1cf882d79 checkpatch: add check for tag Co-Developed-by

I thought it was odd when you said they could go in through _any_
tree. Not to worry, it's not urgent. 

Thanks for the responce.

	Tobin

Re: checkpatch changes for 4.16

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:23 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Hi Joe,
> > > 
> > > Can I please bother you with a maintainer question.  I know everyone is
> > > super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> > > doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
> > > and all that.
> > > 
> > > I have the checkpatch set queued ready to do a GIT PULL to Linus.  My
> > > concern is that the subject line may not be unique if checkpatch changes
> > > are coming in from various trees this merge window. I have tagged the
> > > pull request with
> > 
> > Personally, I think you could let Andrew Morton pick them
> > up as very few patches for checkpatch go in any other way.
> 
> ok no worries.  I'll leave it until a few rc's are out then send to Andrew.
> 
> > What patches are you submitting again?
> > 
> > Is it just
> > 
> > commit 7b1924a1d930 ("vsprintf: add printk specifier %px")
> > 
> > or is there something else?
> 
> d94e97bc9ede checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_real()
> d0e27c47f5b9 checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_here()
> 986b3b5b7d7a checkpatch: warn for use of %px
> 26c1cf882d79 checkpatch: add check for tag Co-Developed-by
> 
> I thought it was odd when you said they could go in through _any_
> tree. Not to worry, it's not urgent. 

Stuff that is going to be pulled should at least
marinate in -next for awhile first and not first
be presented as a pull request.

Re: checkpatch changes for 4.16

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 03:56:19PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:23 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > > Hi Joe,
> > > > 
> > > > Can I please bother you with a maintainer question.  I know everyone is
> > > > super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> > > > doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
> > > > and all that.
> > > > 
> > > > I have the checkpatch set queued ready to do a GIT PULL to Linus.  My
> > > > concern is that the subject line may not be unique if checkpatch changes
> > > > are coming in from various trees this merge window. I have tagged the
> > > > pull request with
> > > 
> > > Personally, I think you could let Andrew Morton pick them
> > > up as very few patches for checkpatch go in any other way.
> > 
> > ok no worries.  I'll leave it until a few rc's are out then send to Andrew.
> > 
> > > What patches are you submitting again?
> > > 
> > > Is it just
> > > 
> > > commit 7b1924a1d930 ("vsprintf: add printk specifier %px")
> > > 
> > > or is there something else?
> > 
> > d94e97bc9ede checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_real()
> > d0e27c47f5b9 checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_here()
> > 986b3b5b7d7a checkpatch: warn for use of %px
> > 26c1cf882d79 checkpatch: add check for tag Co-Developed-by
> > 
> > I thought it was odd when you said they could go in through _any_
> > tree. Not to worry, it's not urgent. 
> 
> Stuff that is going to be pulled should at least
> marinate in -next for awhile first and not first
> be presented as a pull request.

Oh cheers, I forgot about that for leaking_addresses patches too :(

thanks,
Tobin.