Re: [PATCH 1/6] thermal: split thermal_zone_of_sensor_register{,_param}()

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>]

On 12/16/2018 06:42 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2018 09:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2018 09:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:07 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2018 07:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:49 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/15/2018 07:47 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/15/2018 06:23 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 02:49:22AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce new thermal_zone_of_sensor_register_params() function, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows passing struct thermal_zone_params into it and convert original
>>>>>>>>>>>> thermal_zone_of_sensor_register() to call it with params set to NULL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Git complains about mismatch between From: and this SOB.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I recall a discussion about gmail stripping the +foo tags from email
>>>>>>>>>> addresses. I can add a From: tag into the patch to override this
>>>>>>>>>> braindeath, or is there a better solution ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Run the "git format-patch" command from a git repo where user.email
>>>>>>>>> is marek.vasut@gmail.com, so it will retain the original From: tag in the
>>>>>>>>> email body, as it is different?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can also manually patch the From tags or add them, but it's all
>>>>>>>> workarounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use a different outgoing email server? I use my ISP's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe it'd make sense to fix git to handle the +tags correctly ?
>>>>>
>>>>> What needs to be fixed?
>>>>> If user.email != From, git format-patch generates a From: header, else
>>>>> it doesn't. Doesn't that make sense?
>>>>
>>>> I believe the complaint here is that email address in From does not
>>>> match email address in SoB line, because some SMTP servers scrub the
>>>> +foo tag from From: and not from SoB-line . And yet, the SoB line is
>>>
>>> Some SMTP servers (Hi Gmail!) scrub the +foo tag from the From: _header_
>>> in the email. As the SoB is in the _body_ it is not affected.
>>> Hence the solution is to include the correct From: in the _body_.
>>
>> This is basically what I said.
>>
>>> Git actually does that automatically, assumed your user.email config matches
>>> the From: address that is used in your outgoing email delivery path (i.e. the
>>> scrubbed one, when using Gmail's SMTP server).
>>> If you lie to git in your user.email config, git cannot do the right
>>> thing, obviously.
>>
>> My git user.email obviously matches the From: field , before the
>> scrubbing, which I believe is the correct thing to do.
> 
> I disagree, because that is not how the emails are actually going out from the
> SMTP server you are using.

Can you summarize, clearly, what you believe is the right thing to
configure and where ?

>>>> from the same person/email address as the email address in From, so they
>>>> are equal.
>>>
>>> If they differ, they are not equal ;-)
>>
>> Depends on how you define 'equal' . Here I think foo+bar@example.com
>> should be considered equal to foo@example.com .
> 
> That is domain-specific knowledge, which you cannot rely upon.
> 
>>> While many mail servers ignore +foo when delivering email to mailboxes,
>>> this is not the case for all of them.  So ignoring +foo is not the universal
>>> solution.
>>>
>>>> I think git should just ignore the +foo tag in SoB line.
>>>
>>> Where should "git" ignore the +foo tag? Is it actually git that complains?
>>> Eduardo: Do you mean checkpatch? ;-)
>>
>> Possibly. I ran checkpatch after git format-patch and it didn't complain.
>>
>>> I did enhance checkpatch with a check to verify that patches carry SoB tags
>>> from their authors, as too many people got that wrong, causing complaints
>>> from sfr in linux-next later. As usual, it's better to get things right as early
>>> as possible in the process, to avoid rework.
>>
>> Aha, so maybe that enhancement needs further enhancement to scrub the
>> +tags before the check ?
> 
> Again, that is domain-specific knowledge, which you cannot rely upon.

How so, please elaborate .

>>> So the problem is on the patch sending side, not on the patch verification
>>> receiving side.
>>> Hence please fix your email setup, thanks!
>>
>> See above.
> 
> How is any of this different from people making mistakes trying to send
> patches through a not-to-be-named corporate email system?

I lost you here.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut