* [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin
@ 2016-07-27 23:05 Allen Hubbe
2016-07-28 0:41 ` Joe Perches
2016-07-28 1:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Allen Hubbe
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Allen Hubbe @ 2016-07-27 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches; +Cc: Allen Hubbe
Before, signoff was not checked if the filename is '-', indicating
reading the patch from stdin. This causes commands such as below not to
warn about a missing signoff.
git show --pretty=email | scripts/checkpatch.pl -
As a workaround, the command could be modified to refer to stdin by a
name other than '-'. The workaround is not an elegant solution, because
elsewhere checkpatch uses the fact that filename equals '-' is special
for stdin, such as setting '$vname' to 'Your patch'.
git show --pretty=email | scripts/checkpatch.pl /dev/stdin
This change causes checkpatch to check for a missing signoff line, even
if the filename is '-', as in the first variation of the command.
Signed-off-by: Allen Hubbe <allenbh@gmail.com>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 4904ced676d4..83acbac10705 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -6045,7 +6045,7 @@ sub process {
ERROR("NOT_UNIFIED_DIFF",
"Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch\n");
}
- if ($is_patch && $filename ne '-' && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) {
+ if ($is_patch && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) {
ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
"Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
}
--
2.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin
2016-07-27 23:05 [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin Allen Hubbe
@ 2016-07-28 0:41 ` Joe Perches
2016-07-29 14:45 ` Allen Hubbe
2016-07-28 1:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Allen Hubbe
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2016-07-28 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Allen Hubbe, linux-kernel, Andy Whitcroft
> This change causes checkpatch to check for a missing signoff line, even
> if the filename is '-', as in the first variation of the command.
I think this is not a great idea because the most likely
use case is piping git diff output ala:
$ git diff <some_path> | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin
2016-07-27 23:05 [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin Allen Hubbe
2016-07-28 0:41 ` Joe Perches
@ 2016-07-28 1:53 ` Allen Hubbe
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Allen Hubbe @ 2016-07-28 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches; +Cc: Allen Hubbe
Signoff was not checked if the filename is '-', indicating reading the
patch from stdin. Commands such as the below would not warn about a
missing signoff, because the patch filename is '-'. This change allows
checkpatch to warn about a missing signoff, even if the input filename
is '-', but only if the patch has a commit message.
git show --pretty=email | scripts/checkpatch.pl -
A more common use of checkpatch with stdin is for piping git diff
through checkpatch. The diff output would not contain a commit message,
and therefore it would not contain a signoff line. For this common use
case, a warning should not be printed about the missing signoff. With
this change we will only warn about a missing signoff if the input
contains a commit message.
git diff | scripts/checkpatch.pl -
Before this patch, a workaround for the first command was to refer to
stdin by a name other than '-'. The workaround is not an elegant
solution, because elsewhere checkpatch uses the fact that filename
equals '-', such as in setting '$vname' to 'Your patch' for stdin. The
command below would report "/dev/stdin has style problems" instead of
"Your patch has style problems."
git show --pretty=email | scripts/checkpatch.pl /dev/stdin
Signed-off-by: Allen Hubbe <allenbh@gmail.com>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 4904ced676d4..9be0343baa77 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2064,6 +2064,7 @@ sub process {
my $is_patch = 0;
my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
my $in_commit_log = 0; #Scanning lines before patch
+ my $has_commit_log = 0; #Encountered lines before patch
my $commit_log_possible_stack_dump = 0;
my $commit_log_long_line = 0;
my $commit_log_has_diff = 0;
@@ -2561,6 +2562,7 @@ sub process {
$rawline =~ /^(commit\b|from\b|[\w-]+:).*$/i)) {
$in_header_lines = 0;
$in_commit_log = 1;
+ $has_commit_log = 1;
}
# Check if there is UTF-8 in a commit log when a mail header has explicitly
@@ -6045,7 +6047,7 @@ sub process {
ERROR("NOT_UNIFIED_DIFF",
"Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch\n");
}
- if ($is_patch && $filename ne '-' && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) {
+ if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) {
ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
"Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
}
--
2.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin
2016-07-28 0:41 ` Joe Perches
@ 2016-07-29 14:45 ` Allen Hubbe
2016-07-29 15:38 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Allen Hubbe @ 2016-07-29 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andy Whitcroft
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> I think this is not a great idea because the most likely
> use case is piping git diff output ala:
>
> $ git diff <some_path> | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
Thanks for the review. Has v2 addressed your concern?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin
2016-07-29 14:45 ` Allen Hubbe
@ 2016-07-29 15:38 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2016-07-29 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Allen Hubbe; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andy Whitcroft, Andrew Morton
On Fri, 2016-07-29 at 10:45 -0400, Allen Hubbe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think this is not a great idea because the most likely
> > use case is piping git diff output ala:
> >
> > $ git diff <some_path> | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
> Thanks for the review. Has v2 addressed your concern?
Hi Allen.
For the most part, yes, your V2 works better.
I was wondering if the - should be optional and thinking
$ git diff <some-path> | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
should work the same way, but I guess that can wait for
another day, so
Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
cheers, Joe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-29 15:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-27 23:05 [PATCH] checkpatch: check signoff when reading stdin Allen Hubbe
2016-07-28 0:41 ` Joe Perches
2016-07-29 14:45 ` Allen Hubbe
2016-07-29 15:38 ` Joe Perches
2016-07-28 1:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Allen Hubbe
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.