Hi Joe,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:02 PM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 17:28 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:20 PM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 11:40 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > When reading a patch file from standard input, checkpatch calls it "Your
> > > > patch", and reports its state as:
> > > >
> > > > Your patch has style problems, please review.
> > > >
> > > > or:
> > > >
> > > > Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for
> > > > submission.
> > > >
> > > > Hence when checking multiple patches by piping them to checkpatch, e.g.
> > > > when checking patchwork bundles using:
> > > >
> > > > formail -s scripts/checkpatch.pl < bundle-foo.mbox
> > > >
> > > > it is difficult to identify which patches need to be reviewed and
> > > > improved.
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by replacing "Your patch" by the patch subject, if present.
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > []
> > > > @@ -1047,6 +1047,10 @@ for my $filename (@ARGV) {
> > > > }
> > > > while (<$FILE>) {
> > > > chomp;
> > > > + if ($vname eq 'Your patch') {
> > > > + my ($subject) = $_ =~ /^Subject:\s*(.*)/;
> > > > + $vname = '"' . $subject . '"' if $subject;
> > >
> > > Hi again Geert.
> > >
> > > Just some stylistic nits:
> > >
> > > $filename is not quoted so I think adding quotes
> > > before and after $subject may not be useful.
> >
> > Filename is indeed not quoted, but $git_commits{$filename} is.
>
> If I understand your use case, this will only show the last
> patch $subject of a bundle?
False.
"formail -s scripts/checkpatch.pl < bundle-foo.mbox" splits
"bundle-foo.mbox" in separate patches, and invokes
"scripts/checkpatch.pl" for each of them.
> Also, it'll show things like "duplicate signature" when multiple
> patches are tested in a single bundle.
False, due to the splitting by formail.
> For instance, if I have a git format-patch series in an output
> directory and do
>
> $ cat <output_dir>/*.patch | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
> Bad output happen.
Yeah, because you're concatenating all patches.
Currently it works for single patches only.
> Maybe this might be better:
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -2444,6 +2444,15 @@ sub process {
>
> my $rawline = $rawlines[$linenr - 1];
>
> +# if input from stdin, report the subject lines if they exist
> + if ($filename eq '-' && !$quiet &&
> + $rawline =~ /^Subject:\s*(.*)/) {
> + report("stdin", "STDIN", '-' x length($1));
> + report("stdin", "STDIN", $1);
> + report("stdin", "STDIN", '-' x length($1));
> + %signatures = (); # avoid duplicate signatures
> + }
> +
> # check if it's a mode change, rename or start of a patch
> if (!$in_commit_log &&
> ($line =~ /^ mode change [0-7]+ => [0-7]+ \S+\s*$/ ||
Perhaps. Just passing the patchwork bundle to checkpatch, and fixing
checkpatch to handle multiple patches in a single file was my first idea.
But it looked fragile, with too much state that needs to be reset.
I.e. the state is not limited to %signatures. You also have to reset
$author inside process(), and probably a dozen other variables.
And make sure that future changes don't forget resetting all newly
introduced variables.
Hence I settled for the solution using formail.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
