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

Aditya yashsri421 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 20:32:14 UTC 2020

On 11/11/20 9:20 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-11-11 at 16:39 +0530, Aditya wrote:
>> 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.
> []
>>> 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
> I think it does not matter much which is chosen.
> The bad signed-off-by: line would still need to be corrected one
> way or another and the added signed-off-line is also possibly
> incorrect so it could need to be modified or deleted.

I think I might have misunderstood here that I do not need to make
changes. Just confirming, Do I need to modify the patch?
Pardon me for my late attention to it.


More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list