checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff checks.
PATCH v4 1/1 checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff checks.
The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague. Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
For example, running checkpatch on commit be6577af0cef ("parisc: Add atomic64_set_release() define to avoid CPU soft lockups"), gives:
WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'John David Anglin <[email protected]>'
The signoff line was:
"Signed-off-by: Dave Anglin <[email protected]>"
Clearly the author has signed off but with a slightly different version of his name. A more appropriate warning would have been to point out at the name mismatch instead.
Previously, the values assumed by $authorsignoff were either 0 or 1 to indicate whether a proper sign off by author is present. Extended the checks to handle three new cases.
$authorsignoff values now denote the following:
0: Missing sign off by patch author.
1: Sign off present and identical.
2: Addresses match, but names are different.
"James Watson <[email protected]>", "James <[email protected]>"
3: Names match, but addresses are different.
"James Watson <[email protected]>", "James Watson <[email protected]>"
4: Names match, addresses excluding subaddress details (RFC 5233) match.
"James Watson <[email protected]>", "James Watson <[email protected]>"
For case 0, an error is generated and for the
other cases 2, 3 and 4, warnings are generated.
--- scripts/checkpatch.pl | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
scripts/checkpatch.pl +50 -4
@@ -2347,6 +2347,7 @@ sub process { my $signoff = 0; my $author = ''; my $authorsignoff = 0; + my $author_sob = ''; my $is_patch = 0; my $is_binding_patch = -1; my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
@@ -2674,9 +2675,34 @@ sub process { if ($line =~ /^\s*signed-off-by:\s*(.*)/i) { $signoff++; $in_commit_log = 0; - if ($author ne '') { + if ($author ne '' && $authorsignoff != 1) { if (same_email_addresses($1, $author)) { $authorsignoff = 1; + } else { + my $ctx = $1; + my ($email_name, $email_comment, $email_address, $comment1) = parse_email($ctx); + my ($author_name, $author_comment, $author_address, $comment2) = parse_email($author); + + if ($email_address eq $author_address) { + $author_sob = $ctx; + $authorsignoff = 2; + } elsif ($email_name eq $author_name) { + $author_sob = $ctx; + $authorsignoff = 3; + + my $address1 = $email_address; + my $address2 = $author_address; + + if ($address1 =~ /(\S+)\+\S+(\@.*)/) { + $address1 = "$1$2"; + } + if ($address2 =~ /(\S+)\+\S+(\@.*)/) { + $address2 = "$1$2"; + } + if ($address1 eq $address2) { + $authorsignoff = 4; + } + } } } }
@@ -6891,9 +6917,29 @@ sub process { if ($signoff == 0) { ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF", "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n"); - } elsif (!$authorsignoff) { - WARN("NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF", - "Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author '$author'\n"); + } elsif ($authorsignoff != 1) { + # authorsignoff values: + # 0 -> missing sign off + # 1 -> sign off identical + # 2 -> addresses match, names different + # 3 -> names match, addresses different + # 4 -> names match, addresses excluding subaddress details (refer RFC 5233) match + + my $sob_msg = "'From: $author' != 'Signed-off-by: $author_sob'"; + + if ($authorsignoff == 0) { + ERROR("NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF", + "Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author '$author'\n"); + } elsif ($authorsignoff == 2) { + WARN("NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF", + "From:/Signed-off-by: email name mismatch: $sob_msg\n"); + } elsif ($authorsignoff == 3) { + WARN("NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF", + "From:/Signed-off-by: email address mismatch: $sob_msg\n"); + } elsif ($authorsignoff == 4) { + WARN("NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF", + "From:/Signed-off-by: email extension mismatch: $sob_msg\n"); + } } }
Signature · 1 line
2.27.0
Joe Perches
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · Dwaipayan Ray
The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague. Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
For example, running checkpatch on commit
be6577af0cef("parisc: Addatomic64_set_release()define to avoid CPU soft lockups"), gives:
Aren't you still missing emitting an message for cases like
From: "J. Random Developer" <[email protected]>
Where a comment does not match?
Quoted 9 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 6 lines · Dwaipayan Ray
The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague. Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
For example, running checkpatch on commit
be6577af0cef("parisc: Addatomic64_set_release()define to avoid CPU soft lockups"), gives:
Quoted 9 lines
Aren't you still missing emitting an message for cases like
From: "J. Random Developer" <[email protected]>
[...]Signed-off-by "J. Random Developer" (BigCorp) <[email protected]>Where a comment does not match?
Yes, messages for comments were not emitted previously too cause the same_email_address() function just matches name and email (discarding name comments and email comments).
So should I add it to this patch, or should I work on it in a different patch perhaps because it involves change on another subroutine?
Thanks,
Dwaipayan.
Joe Perches
maintainerQuoted 19 lines · Dwaipayan Ray
Quoted 8 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 6 lines · Dwaipayan Ray
The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague. Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
For example, running checkpatch on commit
be6577af0cef("parisc: Addatomic64_set_release()define to avoid CPU soft lockups"), gives:Quoted 9 lines
Aren't you still missing emitting an message for cases like
From: "J. Random Developer" <[email protected]>
[...]Signed-off-by "J. Random Developer" (BigCorp) <[email protected]>Where a comment does not match?
Quoted 6 lines
Yes, messages for comments were not emitted previously too cause the
same_email_address()function just matches name and email (discarding name comments and email comments).So should I add it to this patch, or should I work on it in a different patch perhaps because it involves change on another subroutine?
I suggest adding it to this patch.
Joe Perches
maintainerQuoted 1 line · Joe Perches
I suggest adding it to this patch.
as a --strict CHK as it's not an actual defect in addressing just a trivial difference in formatting.