* [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict
@ 2016-10-28 12:49 Chris Wilson
2016-10-28 13:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2016-10-28 14:57 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2016-10-28 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: intel-gfx, Chris Wilson, Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches, Joonas Lahtinen
Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
(or with --review).
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
my $quiet = 0;
my $tree = 1;
my $chk_signoff = 1;
+my $chk_review = 0;
my $chk_patch = 1;
my $tst_only;
my $emacs = 0;
@@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
-q, --quiet quiet
--no-tree run without a kernel tree
--no-signoff do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
+ --review check for 'Reviewed-by' line
--patch treat FILE as patchfile (default)
--emacs emacs compile window format
--terse one line per report
@@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
'q|quiet+' => \$quiet,
'tree!' => \$tree,
'signoff!' => \$chk_signoff,
+ 'review!' => \$chk_review,
'patch!' => \$chk_patch,
'emacs!' => \$emacs,
'terse!' => \$terse,
@@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
list_types(0) if ($list_types);
-$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
+$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
$check_orig = $check;
my $exit = 0;
@@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
}
$chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
+$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
my @rawlines = ();
my @lines = ();
@@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
our $clean = 1;
my $signoff = 0;
+ my $review = 0;
my $is_patch = 0;
my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
my $in_commit_log = 0; #Scanning lines before patch
@@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
$in_commit_log = 0;
}
+# Check the patch for any review:
+ if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
+ $review++;
+ $in_commit_log = 0;
+ }
+
# Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated. If so, there's probably no need to
# emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
@@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
"Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
}
+ if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
+ ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
+ "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
+ }
print report_dump();
if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
--
2.10.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict
2016-10-28 12:49 [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict Chris Wilson
@ 2016-10-28 13:33 ` Jani Nikula
2016-10-28 14:02 ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-28 14:57 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jani Nikula @ 2016-10-28 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, linux-kernel; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches, intel-gfx
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> (or with --review).
Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)
BR,
Jani.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
> my $quiet = 0;
> my $tree = 1;
> my $chk_signoff = 1;
> +my $chk_review = 0;
> my $chk_patch = 1;
> my $tst_only;
> my $emacs = 0;
> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
> -q, --quiet quiet
> --no-tree run without a kernel tree
> --no-signoff do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
> + --review check for 'Reviewed-by' line
> --patch treat FILE as patchfile (default)
> --emacs emacs compile window format
> --terse one line per report
> @@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
> 'q|quiet+' => \$quiet,
> 'tree!' => \$tree,
> 'signoff!' => \$chk_signoff,
> + 'review!' => \$chk_review,
> 'patch!' => \$chk_patch,
> 'emacs!' => \$emacs,
> 'terse!' => \$terse,
> @@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
>
> list_types(0) if ($list_types);
>
> -$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
> +$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
> $check_orig = $check;
>
> my $exit = 0;
> @@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
> }
>
> $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
> +$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
>
> my @rawlines = ();
> my @lines = ();
> @@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
>
> our $clean = 1;
> my $signoff = 0;
> + my $review = 0;
> my $is_patch = 0;
> my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
> my $in_commit_log = 0; #Scanning lines before patch
> @@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
> $in_commit_log = 0;
> }
>
> +# Check the patch for any review:
> + if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
> + $review++;
> + $in_commit_log = 0;
> + }
> +
> # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated. If so, there's probably no need to
> # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
> if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> @@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
> ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
> "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
> }
> + if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
> + ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
> + "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
> + }
>
> print report_dump();
> if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict
2016-10-28 13:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
@ 2016-10-28 14:02 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2016-10-28 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Nikula; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andy Whitcroft, Joe Perches, intel-gfx
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> > have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> > encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> > enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> > (or with --review).
>
> Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
> addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
> intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)
I do believe we should be keeping the (our, my?) notion of review out of
the signed-off-by tag (which imo is a legal statement about the
provenance of a patch), and so yes we shouldn't be pushing patches that
haven't gone through the rite of fire and been seconded by someone else.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict
2016-10-28 12:49 [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict Chris Wilson
2016-10-28 13:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
@ 2016-10-28 14:57 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2016-10-28 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, linux-kernel; +Cc: intel-gfx, Andy Whitcroft, Joonas Lahtinen
On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 13:49 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> (or with --review).
I rather dislike this as it imposes a rule outside
of what's documented in SubmittingPatches.
Ideally, please keep a private version of this.
And unless and until SubmittingPatches is updated,
please keep this separate from --strict.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
> my $quiet = 0;
> my $tree = 1;
> my $chk_signoff = 1;
> +my $chk_review = 0;
> my $chk_patch = 1;
> my $tst_only;
> my $emacs = 0;
> @@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
> -q, --quiet quiet
> --no-tree run without a kernel tree
> --no-signoff do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
> + --review check for 'Reviewed-by' line
> --patch treat FILE as patchfile (default)
> --emacs emacs compile window format
> --terse one line per report
> @@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
> 'q|quiet+' => \$quiet,
> 'tree!' => \$tree,
> 'signoff!' => \$chk_signoff,
> + 'review!' => \$chk_review,
> 'patch!' => \$chk_patch,
> 'emacs!' => \$emacs,
> 'terse!' => \$terse,
> @@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
>
> list_types(0) if ($list_types);
>
> -$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
> +$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
> $check_orig = $check;
>
> my $exit = 0;
> @@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
> }
>
> $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
> +$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
>
> my @rawlines = ();
> my @lines = ();
> @@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
>
> our $clean = 1;
> my $signoff = 0;
> + my $review = 0;
> my $is_patch = 0;
> my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
> my $in_commit_log = 0; #Scanning lines before patch
> @@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
> $in_commit_log = 0;
> }
>
> +# Check the patch for any review:
> + if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
> + $review++;
> + $in_commit_log = 0;
> + }
> +
> # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated. If so, there's probably no need to
> # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
> if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> @@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
> ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
> "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
> }
> + if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
> + ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
> + "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
> + }
>
> print report_dump();
> if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-28 14:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-28 12:49 [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict Chris Wilson
2016-10-28 13:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2016-10-28 14:02 ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-28 14:57 ` Joe Perches
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).