Re: [PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: Do not check git commit description style when backport the upstream commit
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 08:24:15PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 12:08 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > On 11/25/2020 11:51 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 11:35 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > > When backport the upstream commit to the internal LTS kernel version, > > > > we usually use the following description [1] [2]: > > > > > > > > [ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ] > > > > or > > > > commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream. > > > Internal to what? > > > > > > If it's your own internal build system, I think you should > > > keep your own local patch to checkpatch. > > > > > > I don't see why the kernel version should accept it. > > > > > > Is this style used by anyone else? > > > > AFAIK, this style is only used in the stable tree, for example: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.9.y=c68a9ca7ca33f1020cca97e4e935c2154bec37c7 > > Greg?/Sasha? > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/995e0acb-c219-ea00-f078-7582516e2...@loongson.cn/T/#m2f3d87bd985bf3d4d7b63f1fa4f0490baa01119b > > Is this in your scripts? My scripts put this into a patch when applying it to the stable tree, and so do Sasha's. I don't know why checkpatch would care about this as that's not used for this workflow at all. > Is this something you want/use? I wouldn't use it, and I doubt anyone else would. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: Do not check git commit description style when backport the upstream commit
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 12:08 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > On 11/25/2020 11:51 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 11:35 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > When backport the upstream commit to the internal LTS kernel version, > > > we usually use the following description [1] [2]: > > > > > > [ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ] > > > or > > > commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream. > > Internal to what? > > > > If it's your own internal build system, I think you should > > keep your own local patch to checkpatch. > > > > I don't see why the kernel version should accept it. > > > > Is this style used by anyone else? > > AFAIK, this style is only used in the stable tree, for example: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.9.y=c68a9ca7ca33f1020cca97e4e935c2154bec37c7 Greg?/Sasha? https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/995e0acb-c219-ea00-f078-7582516e2...@loongson.cn/T/#m2f3d87bd985bf3d4d7b63f1fa4f0490baa01119b Is this in your scripts? Is this something you want/use?
Re: [PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: Do not check git commit description style when backport the upstream commit
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 12:08 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > On 11/25/2020 11:51 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 11:35 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > When backport the upstream commit to the internal LTS kernel version, > > > we usually use the following description [1] [2]: > > > > > > [ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ] > > > or > > > commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream. > > Internal to what? > > > > If it's your own internal build system, I think you should > > keep your own local patch to checkpatch. > > > > I don't see why the kernel version should accept it. > > > > Is this style used by anyone else? > > AFAIK, this style is only used in the stable tree, for example: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.9.y=c68a9ca7ca33f1020cca97e4e935c2154bec37c7 >
Re: [PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: Do not check git commit description style when backport the upstream commit
On 11/25/2020 11:51 AM, Joe Perches wrote: On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 11:35 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: When backport the upstream commit to the internal LTS kernel version, we usually use the following description [1] [2]: [ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ] or commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream. Internal to what? If it's your own internal build system, I think you should keep your own local patch to checkpatch. I don't see why the kernel version should accept it. Is this style used by anyone else? AFAIK, this style is only used in the stable tree, for example: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-5.9.y=c68a9ca7ca33f1020cca97e4e935c2154bec37c7
Re: [PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: Do not check git commit description style when backport the upstream commit
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 11:35 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > When backport the upstream commit to the internal LTS kernel version, > we usually use the following description [1] [2]: > > [ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ] > or > commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream. Internal to what? If it's your own internal build system, I think you should keep your own local patch to checkpatch. I don't see why the kernel version should accept it. Is this style used by anyone else?
[PATCH RESEND] checkpatch: Do not check git commit description style when backport the upstream commit
When backport the upstream commit to the internal LTS kernel version,
we usually use the following description [1] [2]:
[ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ]
or
commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream.
We use checkpatch.pl before auto build and there exists auto build
failure due to the following checkpatch error:
ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1>
("")' - ie: 'commit cc6528bc9a0c ("r8169: fix potential skb double
free in an error path")'
#6:
[ Upstream commit cc6528bc9a0c901c83b8220a2e2617f3354d6dd9 ]
or
ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1>
("")' - ie: 'commit c51f8f88d705 ("random32: make prandom_u32()
output unpredictable")'
#6:
commit c51f8f88d705e06bd696d7510aff22b33eb8e638 upstream.
We can use "--ignore GIT_COMMIT_ID" to avoid this checkpatch
error, but I think it is better to modify the check rule of
checkpatch. When there exists "Upstream" or "upstream" in the
commit line, it seems no need to do more check.
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-4.19.y=bc571404829755e4a9504cc5fbc636fea80b2d83
[2]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?h=linux-4.19.y=81d7c56d6fab5ccbf522c47a655cd427808679f2
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang
---
RESEND to Andrew Morton
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index fab38b4..f5bbfdd 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2889,7 +2889,8 @@ sub process {
($line =~ /\bcommit\s+[0-9a-f]{5,}\b/i ||
($line =~ /(?:\s|^)[0-9a-f]{12,40}(?:[\s"'\(\[]|$)/i &&
$line !~ /[\<\[][0-9a-f]{12,40}[\>\]]/i &&
- $line !~ /\bfixes:\s*[0-9a-f]{12,40}/i))) {
+ $line !~ /\bfixes:\s*[0-9a-f]{12,40}/i)) &&
+ $line !~ /^\s*Upstream|upstream/i) {
my $init_char = "c";
my $orig_commit = "";
my $short = 1;
--
2.1.0
