On 10.08.2016 12:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>>>> index 714a000..ab08ca2 100755 >>>>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>>>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>>>> @@ -1289,11 +1289,11 @@ sub process { >>>>> # This is a signoff, if ugly, so do not double report. >>>>> $signoff++; >>>>> if (!($line =~ /^\s*Signed-off-by:/)) { >>>>> - WARN("Signed-off-by: is the preferred form\n" . >>>>> + ERROR("Signed-off-by: is the preferred form\n" . >>>>> $herecurr); >>>>> } >>>> >>>> If you turn this into an ERROR, it's not the "preferred form" anymore, >>>> but the "mandated form". So I'd suggest to either keep it as WARN or to >>>> rephrase the message. >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> ERROR("Signed-off-by: is spelled with >>> uppercase \"s\"\n" . >>> $herecurr); >> >> That would still be confusing if I'd spell it like "Signed-Off-BY", for >> example. > > > Right, so I guess "The correct form is \"Signed-off-by\"\n" is more precise.
Yes, that sounds better. >> Maybe the outer check should simply not be case-insensitive, then you >> could remove this check here completely? > > The reason for that is to hide the "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)" error. > See here: > > # This is a signoff, if ugly, so do not double report. > $signoff++; > ... > if ($is_patch && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) { > ERROR("Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n"); > } Sure, but I think that error would be OK, too, since most people should be able to figure out that they spelled "signed-off-by" in a bad way when they get a "Missing Signed-off-by: line" error. Thomas