From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752900Ab1JSABM (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:01:12 -0400 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:48954 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092Ab1JSABL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:01:11 -0400 Message-ID: <1318982469.7569.1.camel@Joe-Laptop> Subject: Re: checkpatch WARNING: patch prefix 'b' exists, appears to be a -p0 patch From: Joe Perches To: David Rientjes , Wolfram Sang Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Andy Whitcroft , LKML Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:01:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <4E9D9558.7040705@cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.0- 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 Tue, 2011-10-18 at 16:44 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > This started happening when I run checkpatch on pretty much anything. > > triggered by the b in this snipped for example > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/stargate2.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/stargate2.c > > index 3f8d0af..62dc2a8 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/stargate2.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/stargate2.c > > @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ > > #include > > Anyone else seeing this or have a clue what the heck is going on? It's done this since: $ git log -1 1e85572697b348b1a126520349a29654f2ae6a12 commit 1e85572697b348b1a126520349a29654f2ae6a12 Author: Wolfram Sang Date: Tue Jan 6 14:41:24 2009 -0800 checkpatch: Add warning for p0-patches Some people work internally with -p0-patches which has the danger that one forgets to convert them to -p1 before mainlining. Bitten myself and seen p0-patches in mailing lists occasionally, this patch adds a warning to checkpatch.pl in case a patch is -p0. If you really want, you can fool this check to generate false positives, this is why it just spits a warning. Making the check 100% proof is trickier than it looks, so let's start with a version which catches the cases of real use. [apw@canonical.com: update message language, handle null prefix, add tests] Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds I've always ignored it.