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=-2.7 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 5D6EEC64E7B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBA5217A0 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="uX0hz1qc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729807AbgLASWb (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:22:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54142 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726733AbgLASWb (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:22:31 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE66BC0613CF for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:21:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id z136so2623249iof.3 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 10:21:50 -0800 (PST) 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=4ouobtBm8sSQb0vz2vqGGkrgo2OjHAJ9nHVRL58pUGE=; b=uX0hz1qc271RdjaSAXcDDyqtvFg0GUk//wxyUkAsoxen3KpmlHi3IEYgsenDvk5C80 v4/0ljBXXPLRJnotPXKT9MRhl3nAX1NTudLW4h5x91eDfsC3vHaL9P2xj+hoMD5OoIxD vOu22nw2eghmX+PK/io3Z3qq8xU2jQ6DrZWJbWXIJVfPigqXzYlq02nNIfaigGWmzlan bYKfGEjAplaTTjwl10RX/HUvN/N3A+ItWennAFnc3Hy2TWtSKqLj/2BNXYqlPQDcnPi9 k/C3gOOSfhkXezcbjhASXWGhQuyTSdGrQ6fNxVM5EbaDxXVnN0EVe/OdvS5QjxCsSGKR 1dLA== 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=4ouobtBm8sSQb0vz2vqGGkrgo2OjHAJ9nHVRL58pUGE=; b=ueoEug3+Abq5WH8mECqykYDd03Ix/MLRl4Je3DuGsK7T3kj/Gw6YVlRpMvuoO1d1Pt ydMLww2SrD1/eDYtQJ3jLIWpfpHpZJ9xFWJXMJq8ov6rHwXVLV3hQVtZELbmkC6cTuVm gMwr2+88VO+CT3rLxgy3aDFDRCXhh99g2tqgvSLYP5UbeNGhjr0JixV67Wtp+Yii3TuW VIsypLCTpqZdeWWWk2P9MItkbue0RvdfN9B6zHh197SiKfIeLv9+DWnKZb6WegPzZA5n lSx0Y5n0K/fMDTWg0xYclND8EDlT+m9yqsExQWtZOVGZ60LctX8FOTZGw97qGj1HITEW COGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5317qlKn/2GniwON1Y+9OxtFc6nwtgoObrlproF3oh0bZrjwPIGD JtcmbcZyWUcvnR2HAkEuJwYSpD0t/JVtEttaVvrDFT7jYfAT8g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtX+nHYBolzK2l0oZRuVJ03EZTJvWOEnie/fZJWiF3VTwTR48gquIufwsVkdo+3j96NU3nHOCXX1vVhZTCD+g= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c047:: with SMTP id q68mr3418312iof.189.1606846910267; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 10:21:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201201112931.11192-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lukas Bulwahn Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:21:39 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature To: Joe Perches Cc: Aditya Srivastava , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:24 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:59 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote: > > Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature > > styles. > > > > This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags, > > e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed the use of following incorrect > > signature tags, which may seem correct, but are not standard: > > I'm not a fan of this patch. > > There is already a "non-standard" signature warning for > all of these cases since 2012, predating the range of this > retrospective evaluation by over 5 years and yet these > existing commits have been accepted. > > The value in actual standardization and effectively > requiring specific signature style tags is quite low. > > Anyone that signed a thing a particular way should be free > to sign the thing as they choose. > > Most of these warnings would also still be in the tree in > the future in new patches as running checkpatch without > it emitting a message of any type isn't a requirement nor > should checkpatch use actually be required workflow. > Can we scale this fixing feature down to the very obvious synonyms that simply do not add anything but confusion? Such as for those four here: Co-authored-by (count: 43) => Co-developed-by Reviewed-off-by (count: 5) => Reviewed-by Proposed-by (count: 5) => Suggested-by Suggestions-by (count: 3) => Suggested-by Then, we can probably also drop the rationale because it is pretty clear. Of course, the impact might be really zero, given that it is unclear if those authors did actually ever run checkpatch in the first place. Joe, if you see no value in even such a minimal fix feature, let us drop that idea and move on. There are enough other things to work on. Lukas