From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321DFC4363C for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA44E21707 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dsV+Y50F" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728139AbgJGSyK (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:54:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44774 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727033AbgJGSyK (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:54:10 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x243.google.com (mail-oi1-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::243]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3BA5C061755 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x243.google.com with SMTP id z26so3535745oih.12 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 11:54:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q4If+TCyiw9yiNk5xVyk9qCMBHV8IsTz4Qj42igWU3E=; b=dsV+Y50FgwarfakCN8ShfjweD0Be9WxVU2H4i1/Bxw2OqJstl+dB01hatMej0NMEkn gwQQy5niBpeLEhlPRoTcm1EWWQHmUN+94i5tFZHjdDRKhVI9moPj1xuAZG+dUA+A2xiF Qac63cFL1O2lih18X5ANKMI52BUKOrv30FtpZw/jRJz60qwreULbtOh4Qt0mwuL66pvD QY6ih1LxWdtG1cOAraQO10kRZN3s505iy8oi3MWe5aB6/dgx3J6JEe7UNBJYqw/xkxpK cgQRhkW0dld9bkCGh9PRoetporVnU5sz6Y8TikjJet87rGnB0qLk7y9Lu71IgUmhn9Ck jkUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q4If+TCyiw9yiNk5xVyk9qCMBHV8IsTz4Qj42igWU3E=; b=XtmHR+kx5//28MZxQscRSbCdEdIKMM+Y+wdACaZYNrq+Ho3XDfIufFXCuA+JyAtEpQ w1NhVt0AiEVqKVmxsuKphrgACLAgZv0Pms1AQYXbBjIK8AXs6oIQdObpM2JxpAoDyrM8 LHkMwZ0WvxY875jknVp9u/ZdeyG12+RrBNKzq7EPYdX1Cmc+d6PiZaoA76pwriS0r71U 7FIr4EkWj3YwtEQ84g7jsy9SyQ7Im8AxulfERipouf4g7yhbKDbWpETB9NbLMn5Z0OU2 d5/THFOjNXvAINSN4GYoUMR+RCkYD6B5CXuIp59fifQaYTYNg2DMq1MRy6DqaH0STWmY RHZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jQ1N4wpIJwiSfFaB1u+w1knx4fLUhtupLah9/stm2nLI0yUNT 9EJ15J7pPWKVJEUM6y99V3H/AXU8MYjW3EjQlhM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzkA7qPxjE2iqnVluFz/QMlydOFlVvP64bYz4mDnKBkl5ODKeVE6cAcInl1wxe/xQPaZUs64lunnOV6wUSDIo= X-Received: by 2002:aca:b2d7:: with SMTP id b206mr2934781oif.110.1602096848117; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 11:54:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201007063315.41585-1-dwaipayanray1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dwaipayan Ray Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:23:45 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff checks. To: Joe Perches Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel , Lukas Bulwahn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:14 AM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 00:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:48 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 12:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > > > The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague. > > > > > Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately. > > > > > > Likely now, the type should be changed from NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF > > > to a single something else for all the other types of messages. > > > > > > > > Since BAD_SIGNOFF is being used for a different context, then > > probably BAD_AUTHOR_SIGNOFF. > > > > Should this work or anything else you have in mind? > > That may be a bit too strong a wording as these aren't > significant/bad defects. > > Maybe something like FROM_SIGNOFF_MISMATCH. > > It's not anything that would reject the patch. > > It's a pity type uses both SIGNOFF and SIGN_OFF. > Oh right sorry, It was a "visual mistake" on my part, it's SIGN_OFF indeed and not SIGNOFF. And I agree with the strong wording. So I will probably make it FROM_SIGN_OFF_MISMATCH. And after that send in a v6. (If I run out of single digit version numbers after this, it will be embarrassing :( ). Thanks, Dwaipayan.