* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve MAINTAINERS file update test
[not found] <20200727205856.28343-1-ddadap@nvidia.com>
@ 2020-07-27 21:07 ` Joe Perches
2020-07-27 22:02 ` Daniel Dadap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2020-07-27 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Dadap, apw; +Cc: LKML
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 15:58 -0500, Daniel Dadap wrote:
> Add an additional regular expression to detect updates to the
> MAINTAINERS file as reported in the unified diffs generated by
> `git format-patch`. This suppresses the "does MAINTAINERS need
> updating" message when MAINTAINERS is updated with this format.
Please cc at least LKML.
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -2621,7 +2621,8 @@ sub process {
>
> # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated. If so, there's probably no need to
> # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
> - if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> + if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/ ||
> + $line =~ /^[-+]{3} [ab]\/MAINTAINERS$/) {
I don't believe this works well as any test
for a file modification to MAINTAINERS occurs
after the block that would show a diffstat
where the warning is emitted.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve MAINTAINERS file update test
2020-07-27 21:07 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: improve MAINTAINERS file update test Joe Perches
@ 2020-07-27 22:02 ` Daniel Dadap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Dadap @ 2020-07-27 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches, apw; +Cc: LKML
On 7/27/20 4:07 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 15:58 -0500, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>> Add an additional regular expression to detect updates to the
>> MAINTAINERS file as reported in the unified diffs generated by
>> `git format-patch`. This suppresses the "does MAINTAINERS need
>> updating" message when MAINTAINERS is updated with this format.
> Please cc at least LKML.
Oops; thanks for adding the list. I'll be sure to include it for any
revised patches.
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
>> @@ -2621,7 +2621,8 @@ sub process {
>>
>> # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated. If so, there's probably no need to
>> # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
>> - if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
>> + if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/ ||
>> + $line =~ /^[-+]{3} [ab]\/MAINTAINERS$/) {
> I don't believe this works well as any test
> for a file modification to MAINTAINERS occurs
> after the block that would show a diffstat
> where the warning is emitted.
Hmm. It must have worked for me because the MAINTAINERS file appeared
earlier in the patch than a newly added file in a patch I was checking
that triggers this warning before this change, but doesn't after this
change. This needn't be the case, though. Would it make sense to move
the check for a diffstat-style /^\sMAINTAINERS\s*\|/ as well as a
unidiff-style /^[-+]{3} [ab]\/MAINTAINERS$/ to the pre-scan sanitize phase?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-07-27 22:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20200727205856.28343-1-ddadap@nvidia.com>
2020-07-27 21:07 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: improve MAINTAINERS file update test Joe Perches
2020-07-27 22:02 ` Daniel Dadap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®