Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-4.0 2/4] checkpatch: check Signed-off-by in --mailback mode

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 29/11/18 17:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Pull the test before the anticipated exits from the process sub.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 7 ++++---
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index d58fcb1efd..c216c55e01 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -2866,6 +2866,10 @@ sub process {
>>              }
>>      }
>>  
>> +    if ($is_patch && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) {
>> +            ERROR("Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>> +    }
>> +
>>      # If we have no input at all, then there is nothing to report on
>>      # so just keep quiet.
>>      if ($#rawlines == -1) {
>> @@ -2887,9 +2891,6 @@ sub process {
>>      if (!$is_patch) {
>>              ERROR("Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch\n");
>>      }
>> -    if ($is_patch && $chk_signoff && $signoff == 0) {
>> -            ERROR("Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
>> -    }
>>  
>>      print report_dump();
>>      if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
> 
> Would this make sense for Linux's checkpatch.pl, too?
> 

Yes, but I have never had any luck upstreaming our changes. :(  For
example, e20122ff0faf07cb701d35e39e106d1783c07725 is a genuine bugfix
but it was ignored.

I am willing to give it a try, but I'd rather not hold this change to
QEMU's checkpatch.

(Same answer for 1/4).

Paolo