Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 5/5] checkpatch: reduce MAINTAINERS update message frequency

[Cornelia Huck]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:39:35 +0100
Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 26.01.2017 14:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 26/01/2017 14:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> This is a port of the following commit from the Linux kernel:
> >>
> >> commit e0d975b1b439c4fef58fbc306c542c94f48bb849
> >> Author: Joe Perches <address@hidden>
> >> Date:   Wed Dec 10 15:51:49 2014 -0800
> >>
> >>     checkpatch: reduce MAINTAINERS update message frequency
> >>
> >>     When files are being added/moved/deleted and a patch contains an 
> >> update to
> >>     the MAINTAINERS file, assume it's to update the MAINTAINERS file 
> >> correctly
> >>     and do not emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message.
> >>
> >>     Reported by many people.
> >>
> >>     Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <address@hidden>
> >>     Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <address@hidden>
> >>     Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> >> index e1be7b3..555a5b6 100755
> >> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> >> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> >> @@ -1300,6 +1300,12 @@ sub process {
> >>                    }
> >>            }
> >>  
> >> +# Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need 
> >> to
> >> +# emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file 
> >> add/move/delete
> >> +          if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
> >> +                  $reported_maintainer_file = 1;
> >> +          }
> >> +
> >>  # Check for added, moved or deleted files
> >>            if (!$reported_maintainer_file && !$in_commit_log &&
> >>                ($line =~ /^(?:new|deleted) file mode\s*\d+\s*$/ ||
> >>
> > 
> > Maybe leave it as a warning given this change?
> 
> I think chances are high that it still pops up quite frequently with
> false positives:
> 
> 1) The above regex only triggers for patches that contain a diffstat. If
> you run the script on patches without diffstat, you always get the
> warning as soon as you add, delete or move a file, even if you update
> the MAINTAINERS file in the same patch.
> 
> 2) I think it is quite common in patch series to first introduce new
> files in the first patches, and then update MAINTAINERS only once at the
> end.
> 
> 3) The MAINTAINERS file often covers whole folders with wildcard
> expressions. So if you add/delete/rename a file within such a folder,
> you don't need to update MAINTAINERS thanks to the wildcard.
> 
> I guess people might be annoyed if checkpatch.pl throws a warning in
> these cases. So a "NOTE: ..." sounds more sane to me. But if you like,
> we can also start with a WARNING first and only ease it if people start
> to complain?

I'd vote for 'NOTE:'. I'm always a bit annoyed if checkpatch triggers
for a file already covered by 3) (which seems to be the most common
case for patches I've been involved with).