Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve error message for p1-check | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:29:02 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 13:11 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > 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,
Hi David.
It might be better if you would submit patches to checkpatch before you nack others.
How about you track the --- and +++ lines and submit a suggested patch yourself?
> 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.
Just as there's nothing wrong with storing original and modified versions of subdirectories too.
> 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.
There's no single perfect test and it's just a silly warning anyway.
I think the most common case is the direct editing of a single file and production of a diff to submit as a patch.
$ emacs <file> # make changes, save original as ~ backup $ diff -urN <file>~ <file> > ./foo.diff $ make mrproper; make allyesconfig ; make # deletes backup files $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl foo.diff
I didn't bother even finding out why the message was emitted for me even though I had a b temp directory in my tree. I just ignored it.
cheers, Joe
| |