10/05/2022 13:21, Stanisław Kardach: > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:31 PM David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > >> About the new "Sponsored-by" tag, it should not raise warnings in the > > >> CI if we agree on its addition. > > > > > > I'll modify it in V2 to be in form of: > > > Sponsored by: StarFive Technology > > > ... > > > Signed-off-by: ... > > > This was suggested by Stephen Hemminger as having a precedent in Linux > > kernel. Interestingly enough first use of this tag in kernel source was > > this year in January. > > > > I don't have an opinion on the spelling. > > > > At the moment, the checks raise a warning: > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2022-May/278580.html > > > > My point is that for this new tag, either checkpatch.pl in kernel > > handles it (which I don't think it is the case) or we need to disable > > the signature check in checkpatch.pl and something is added in dpdk > > checkpatches.sh to accept all known tags. > > > BAD_SIGN_OFF handles more than just tag names (in total there's 10 cases > checked). I'm not sure replicating this to checkpatches.sh is worth the > maintenance. > Alternatively I could ignore BAD_SIGN_OFF on initial checkpatch.pl run and > then run it again with just the BAD_SIGN_OFF type and filter out the result. > In that case, what would be the acceptable content of Sponsored-by tag? For > line: > Sponsored-by: StarFive Technology > Current checkpatch.pl generates (used --terse for brevity): > 0001-eal-add-initial-support-for-RISC-V-architecture.patch:55: > WARNING:BAD_SIGN_OFF: Non-standard signature: Sponsored-by: > 0001-eal-add-initial-support-for-RISC-V-architecture.patch:55: > ERROR:BAD_SIGN_OFF: Unrecognized email address: 'StarFive Technology' > > Using "Sponsored by:" does not trigger checks above (still feels like a > hack).
Agree it is a hack, and not having the hyphen breaks my Vim colouring :) We can ignore this checkpatch warning, that's fine.
