[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature

Aditya yashsri421 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 03:12:25 UTC 2020

On 23/11/20 11:03 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:54 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
>> Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature
>> styles.
> I think this proposed change is unnecessary.
>> This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags,
>> e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed the use of following incorrect
>> signature tags, which may seem correct, but are not standard:
> Standards are useful, but standards are not constraints.
>> 1) Requested-by (count: 48) => Suggested-by
>> Rationale: In an open-source project, there are no 'requests', just
>> 'suggestions' to convince a maintainer to accept your patch
> There's nothing really wrong with some non-standard signatures.
> And I think leaving humor like brown-paper-bag-by: is useful.
> Just telling people that they are using a non-standard signature
> I think is enough.

Hi Joe
Thanks for reviewing. We were also planning to provide fix for certain
non-standard signature warnings due to typo mistake in the signoffs,
using edit distance approach. These signatures were probably not
intended by the user.
E.g. for signatures like: 'Reviwed-by:', 'Singed-off-by:',etc.
Here is the list I have generated for non-standard signatures with
edit distance of 2 or less along with their count (over v4.13..v5.8).
(Among total 539 Non-standard signature warnings, warnings caused by
typo mistakes are 85 in number):


This is the predicted correct signoffs we are getting (for less than
or equal to 2):

The reason I have chosen 2 as threshold is that count 3 onwards, the
results start deviating.
List for edit distance 3:

What do you think?


More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list