Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Check for the FSF mailing address

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:33 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:27:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 14:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:39PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 11:43 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > > Kernel maintainers reject new instances of the GPL boilerplate paragraph
> > > > > > directing people to write to the FSF for a copy of the GPL, since the
> > > > > > FSF has moved in the past and may do so again.
> > []
> > > any objections to merging the patch in its current form?
> > 
> > Your own suggestion that this be applied only to
> > patches hasn't been implemented.
> 
> Given Greg's comment that we want to eliminate the existing instances, I
> wanted to make sure implementing that change still makes sense.
> 
> I can easily enough make checkpatch emit an ERROR for patches and a WARN
> or CHK for existing files, if that's the consensus.

Hi Josh

Most of the time, action is at least as useful as consensus.

If you do the runtime --file check, please use this form:

	my $msg_type = \&WARN;
	$msg_type = \&CHK if ($file);
	&{$msg_type}("FSF_MESSAGE",
		     etc...)

(that form matches the trigraph test)

Use whatever ERROR/WARN/CHK you think appropriate.