From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f169.google.com (mail-pl1-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED1713DBB9 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 16:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="g1KQ7BIL" Received: by mail-pl1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d350dff621so6918825ad.1 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:46:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1702658806; x=1703263606; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LEFbv48kStn7YQWxBmbzN7WZhe1SNeOtsv98Z9G0G2E=; b=g1KQ7BILH1e7Bt4tdBLaOLRId4khfBdWuA3zaThpOKkR9+te/YBEhE5kXCVef+Ytsq JMx7SZzIzvd3dZIV+yqRQRAiqPtyXrwswrzgQy9HCivrDaXSuOdiu+O6BJy7IfaRjYjk TQk4j12xtoyL7djhzba10mKDtdIcCgEDYP0JuVeqVt9sNkV1TSOzfP0K6/PU3Ze8GopM 4tro19VxcsJySCWhfsDzFDCgmwb+kGyqjczbkxGSX7P1Cd818YoD76ZtMoyrsvkILO5k /KIBQlyAyaLV6XBPuGc4/UEZWpCq9csWxsAQc2W1QRS2Q89BhEu7Zuuhow+iE4vUeHcI kJ5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702658806; x=1703263606; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LEFbv48kStn7YQWxBmbzN7WZhe1SNeOtsv98Z9G0G2E=; b=jg7Ln7k7CQ1tDLvH2vRm+bVhRA0dkRuv6NJzbOinYhUWtc/+caSEh45hKQoOS8hIbB Y4kHq5+75lhFjDC1B7sAI2Nr75j9Ly9i3ATLSQV3HlmLccZhMKH6agLub9zMg/tvxvqq 4KbJ6e6gjwbBAXeju7JYMFh7KQNTEfzshelWoBBozmj6pMyYpLz6MtNLmH5Ezb7Utv+5 DawLJuafi+44x8t8NpuFiEyrUnEdzYwU7WoVFs7eGFI3riyXciwe8znRm+IAwygYgxnB NxEJLB8bBwTK0NFDoAYih/Xjhy24H75U+mrHX33SACU2UDZYrRHxklevAmv3LrM0IGoj 2fNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzbGXhUEy2OLmn8YfV8bUzMAvtvcucqW6MykCk7GRzSkRlWl7sR nebudz3T1kQBz2MJardSIEbwPw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFGjAkcJFnGpwwP2PRLjvwL8vWvSu6SbY4TnbFhmBE2lnAtBIQEWpv8HKBtkuHU0LyXY4gR7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8a88:b0:1d0:6ffd:9e24 with SMTP id p8-20020a1709028a8800b001d06ffd9e24mr10624156plo.118.1702658805910; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:46:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (170.102.105.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.105.102.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x10-20020a1709028eca00b001cf570b10dasm3248155plo.65.2023.12.15.08.46.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:46:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 16:46:42 +0000 From: Carlos Llamas To: Greg KH Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/2] checkpatch: fix repeated word annoyance Message-ID: References: <20231214181505.2780546-1-cmllamas@google.com> <2023121442-cold-scraggly-f19b@gregkh> <2023121506-cavity-snowstorm-c7a3@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2023121506-cavity-snowstorm-c7a3@gregkh> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 08:15:01AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 06:37:43PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 07:23:28PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 06:15:02PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > > > The checkpatch.pl in v5.10.y still triggers lots of false positives for > > > > REPEATED_WORD warnings, particularly for commit logs. Can we please > > > > backport these two fixes? > > > > > > Why is older versions of checkpatch being used? Why not always use the > > > latest version, much like perf is handled? > > > > > > No new code should be written against older kernels, so who is using > > > this old tool? > > > > This is a minor annoyance when working directly with the v5.10 stable > > tree and doing e.g ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -g HEAD. I suppose it makes > > sense to always prefer the top-of-tree scripts. However, this could be > > inconvenient for some scenarios were master needs to be pulled > > separately. > > It makes more sense to use the newer version of the tool, especially as > you are probably having it review backports of newer patches, which > obviously, should follow the newer checkpatch settings, not the older > ones :) Yes, that is the use-case we have. We'll switch to the latest version so please ignore these patches then. Sorry for the noise. -- Carlos Llamas