Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve error message for p1-check |
| |
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Joe Perches wrote:
> > I mean it only makes sense if both prefixes exist (otherwise patch and > > git-apply will assume it's not a -p0 patch). > > I think we should not care about the prefixes at all, > only whether or not the patched file exists. >
Nack, there's nothing wrong with storing original files that you're modifying in a subdirectory with a name of your choice in the kernel tree. It doesn't imply a -p0 patch unless both prefixes appear and that's the best indication that it appears in both the patch author and patch applier's tree whereas the file being modified is ambiguous.
| |