[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add fix option for MISSING_SIGN_OFF

[Aditya]

On 11/11/20 4:00 pm, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:01 AM Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Currently checkpatch warns us if there is no 'Signed-off-by' line
>> for the patch.
>>
>> E.g., running checkpatch on commit 9ac060a708e0 ("leaking_addresses:
>> Completely remove --version flag") reports this error:
>>
>> ERROR: Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)
>>
>> Provide a fix by adding a Signed-off-by line corresponding to the author
>> of the patch before the patch separator line. Also avoid this error for
>> the commits where some typo is present in the sign off.
>>
>> E.g. for commit 8cde5d5f7361 ("bus: ti-sysc: Detect omap4 type timers
>> for quirk") we get missing sign off as well as bad sign off for:
>>
>> Siganed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com>
>>
>> Here it is probably best to give BAD_SIGN_OFF warning for Non-standard
>> signature and avoid MISSING_SIGN_OFF
>>
>> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe at perches.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421 at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> Add space after 'if'
>> Add check for $patch_separator_linenr to be greater than 0
>>
>>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index cb46288127ac..ac7e5ac80b58 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -2404,6 +2404,8 @@ sub process {
>>
>>         my $last_blank_line = 0;
>>         my $last_coalesced_string_linenr = -1;
>> +       my $patch_separator_linenr = 0;
>> +       my $non_standard_signature = 0;
>>
>>         our @report = ();
>>         our $cnt_lines = 0;
>> @@ -2755,6 +2757,10 @@ sub process {
>>                 if ($line =~ /^---$/) {
>>                         $has_patch_separator = 1;
>>                         $in_commit_log = 0;
>> +                       # to add missing sign off line before diff(s)
>> +                       if ($patch_separator_linenr == 0) {
>> +                               $patch_separator_linenr = $linenr;
>> +                       }
>>                 }
>>
>>  # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
>> @@ -2775,6 +2781,9 @@ sub process {
>>                         if ($sign_off !~ /$signature_tags/) {
>>                                 WARN("BAD_SIGN_OFF",
>>                                      "Non-standard signature: $sign_off\n" . $herecurr);
>> +
>> +                               # to avoid missing_sign_off error as it most probably is just a typo
>> +                               $non_standard_signature = 1;
>>                         }
>>                         if (defined $space_before && $space_before ne "") {
>>                                 if (WARN("BAD_SIGN_OFF",
>> @@ -7118,9 +7127,12 @@ sub process {
>>                       "Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch\n");
>>         }
>>         if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_signoff) {
>> -               if ($signoff == 0) {
>> -                       ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
>> -                             "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>> +               if ($signoff == 0 && !$non_standard_signature) {
>> +                       if (ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
>> +                                 "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n") &&
>> +                           $fix && $patch_separator_linenr > 0) {
>> +                               fix_insert_line($patch_separator_linenr - 1, "Signed-off-by: $author");
>> +                       }
> 
> Maybe I am already digging too much in the details... however:
> 
> I think it should still warn about a Missing Signed-off-by: even when
> we know there is a $non_standard_signature. So, checkpatch simply
> emits two warnings; that is okay in that case.
> 
> It is just that our evaluation shows that the provided fix option
> should not be suggested when there is a $non_standard_signature
> because we actually would predict that there is typo in the intended
> Signed-off-by tag and the fix that checkpatch would suggest would not
> be adequate.
> 
> Joe, what is your opinion?
> 
> Aditya, it should not be too difficult to implement the rule that way, right?
> 

No, I'd probably just have to add the check with $fix, instead of with
$signoff

Thanks
Aditya

> 
>>                 } elsif ($authorsignoff != 1) {
>>                         # authorsignoff values:
>>                         # 0 -> missing sign off
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>