On 20/09/07 09:10AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > I was wondering how should I go about the original patch? Should I keep
> > both the checks or just the executable one and let be the patch as it is
> > as further cleanup can lead to better performance as we have already
> > seen with the evaluations.
> >
> 
> Kees Cook and Andrew Morton pointed out that a tool may not rely on
> the executable flag. So, checkpatch.pl may not rely on the executable
> flag; the patch we created here is misdesigned, now we know that.

Sir,

Yes.
> 
> > Also, I have completed all the tasks related to this project on Community
> > Bridge's site. What are the next steps of mentorship? By when can I
> > expect the results sir/ma'am?
> >
> 
> Mentorship can begin by October 1st. We need to develop a project plan
> for the mentorship, you are in the lead to write that. We need a
> project plan for the mentorship to start.
> 
Eagerly looking forward to writing the plan. How, when and to whom am I
required to submit this plan and what should it broadly contain?

> In the process of the checkpatch.pl patch creation, we identified that
> we can check if we find any invocations that rely on the executable
> flag. This could be a first set of tasks to do in the mentorship.
>
Yes, sure sir.

> Maybe, you can find another aspect to look into the checkpatch.pl
> evaluation? Maybe the check for the line of the SPDX-Identifier was
> not the best case to start with, because it is more complex than
> initially thought.
>
I suggested few patches before, guess they can sip into mentorship if
you find them fit enough.
Apart from those I have a few other observations on checkpatch.pl and I
am continuously evaluating the output file for more.
I will share these evaluations on a different thread.
> 
> Lukas