On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 09:17:57AM -0700, Nabih Estefan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:05 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 08:16:53AM -0700, Nabih Estefan wrote: > > > We ran it against an internal patch that we were updating, so I can't > > > show you the patch. > > > > If you can't share that private patch, perhaps you can create a > > dummy patch with the same type of diff structure that shows the > > problem ? > > > The patch looks something like the following:
snip > It's just changing the file from an invalid to a valid one, nothing else is > being done, which is why I'm confused how it's triggering this. Ahhh, I was getting confused about which SPDX check was being triggered. The one that runs against "new" files only is a check for the existence of a SPDX tag. The one that runs against all files is a check for the declared license check. So yes, your patch here is correct & required so Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > > > > However, the difference on it being affected might be in how we're > > > running it? To check > > > against just the changes being done in the specific patch, instead of > > > the whole file, we > > > trigger it by running `./scripts/checkpatch.pl --branch HEAD...HEAD^`. > > > Could that be > > > why it's triggering against existing files? > > > > I don't think that's a problem. It is just a different way ot getting > > a list of git commit hashes to analyse - it'll still operate against > > a patch diff IIUC. > > > > FWIW, I use 'checkpatch.pl master..' and/or 'git show| checkpatch.pl -' > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Nabih > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 2:24 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:59:28PM +0000, Nabih Estefan wrote: > > > > > When running the license check, if we are updating a license it is > > > > > possible for the checkpatch script to test against old license lines > > > > > instead of newer ones, since the removal lines appear before the > > > > > addition lines in a .patch file. > > > > > > > > While we match the "SPDX-License-Identifier" text in any context, > > > > the "file must have SDPX" validation is only performed against > > > > files that are entirely new: > > > > > > > > # Called at the end of processing a diff hunk for a file > > > > sub process_end_of_file { > > > > my $fileinfo = shift; > > > > > > > > if ($fileinfo->{action} eq "new" && > > > > !exists $fileinfo->{facts}->{sawspdx}) { > > > > ...raise error .... > > > > > > > > > Fix this by skipping over lines that start with "-" in the checkpatch > > > > > script. > > > > > > > > A new file cannot have any "-" lines present, so there isn't any > > > > bug that needs fixing AFAICT. Can you show any patch or commit > > > > where this would have made a difference to what checkpatch.pl > > > > reports ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nabih Estefan <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++- > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > index 833f20f555..c57a423f9f 100755 > > > > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > @@ -1813,7 +1813,8 @@ sub process { > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > # Check SPDX-License-Identifier references a permitted license > > > > > - if ($rawline =~ m,SPDX-License-Identifier: > > > > > (.*?)(\*/)?\s*$,) { > > > > > + if (($rawline =~ m,SPDX-License-Identifier: > > > > > (.*?)(\*/)?\s*$,) && > > > > > + $rawline !~ /^-/) { > > > > > $fileinfo->{facts}->{sawspdx} = 1; > > > > > &checkspdx($realfile, $1); > > > > > } > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.51.0.384.g4c02a37b29-goog > > > > > > > > > > > > > With regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > -- > > > > |: https://berrange.com -o- > > > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > > > > |: https://libvirt.org -o- > > > > https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > > > > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- > > > > https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > > > > > > > > > > > With regards, > > Daniel > > -- > > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange > > :| > > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com > > :| > > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange > > :| > > > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
