On 29/11/18 17:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Pull the test before the anticipated exits from the process sub.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> 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
