Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: use patch subject when reading from stdin | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:48:42 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 11:20 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:10 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:02 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 17:28 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:20 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 11:40 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > When reading a patch file from standard input, checkpatch calls it "Your > > > > > > patch", and reports its state as: > > > > > > > > > > > > Your patch has style problems, please review. > > > > > > > > > > > > or: > > > > > > > > > > > > Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence when checking multiple patches by piping them to checkpatch, e.g. > > > > > > when checking patchwork bundles using: > > > > > > > > > > > > formail -s scripts/checkpatch.pl < bundle-foo.mbox > > > > > > > > > > > > it is difficult to identify which patches need to be reviewed and > > > > > > improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fix this by replacing "Your patch" by the patch subject, if present. > > > > > [] > > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > [] > > > > > > @@ -1047,6 +1047,10 @@ for my $filename (@ARGV) { > > > > > > } > > > > > > while (<$FILE>) { > > > > > > chomp; > > > > > > + if ($vname eq 'Your patch') { > > > > > > + my ($subject) = $_ =~ /^Subject:\s*(.*)/; > > > > > > + $vname = '"' . $subject . '"' if $subject; > > > > > > > > > > Hi again Geert. > > > > > > > > > > Just some stylistic nits: > > > > > > > > > > $filename is not quoted so I think adding quotes > > > > > before and after $subject may not be useful. > > > > > > > > Filename is indeed not quoted, but $git_commits{$filename} is. > > > > > > If I understand your use case, this will only show the last > > > patch $subject of a bundle? > > > > False. > > "formail -s scripts/checkpatch.pl < bundle-foo.mbox" splits > > "bundle-foo.mbox" in separate patches, and invokes > > "scripts/checkpatch.pl" for each of them. > > > > > Also, it'll show things like "duplicate signature" when multiple > > > patches are tested in a single bundle. > > > > False, due to the splitting by formail. > > > > > For instance, if I have a git format-patch series in an output > > > directory and do > > > > > > $ cat <output_dir>/*.patch | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > > Bad output happen. > > > > Yeah, because you're concatenating all patches. > > Currently it works for single patches only. > > > > > Maybe this might be better: > > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > @@ -2444,6 +2444,15 @@ sub process { > > > > > > my $rawline = $rawlines[$linenr - 1]; > > > > > > +# if input from stdin, report the subject lines if they exist > > > + if ($filename eq '-' && !$quiet && > > > + $rawline =~ /^Subject:\s*(.*)/) { > > > + report("stdin", "STDIN", '-' x length($1)); > > > + report("stdin", "STDIN", $1); > > > + report("stdin", "STDIN", '-' x length($1)); > > > + %signatures = (); # avoid duplicate signatures > > > + } > > > + > > > # check if it's a mode change, rename or start of a patch > > > if (!$in_commit_log && > > > ($line =~ /^ mode change [0-7]+ => [0-7]+ \S+\s*$/ || > > > > Perhaps. Just passing the patchwork bundle to checkpatch, and fixing > > checkpatch to handle multiple patches in a single file was my first idea. > > But it looked fragile, with too much state that needs to be reset. > > I.e. the state is not limited to %signatures. You also have to reset > > $author inside process(), and probably a dozen other variables. > > And make sure that future changes don't forget resetting all newly > > introduced variables. > > > > Hence I settled for the solution using formail. > > I gave your solution a try. > It only enables the reset-on-next-patch feature when using stdin. > Thanks to the printed subject, it's now obvious to which patch a > message applies to. > However, the output is significantly different than when passing > a split patch series. Can this be improved upon? > > Note that the only reason I'm using stdin is that I use formail to split > a bundle in individual patches. Once checkpatch supports bundles (or > mboxes) containing multiple patches, there's no longer a need for > using formail, and the reset-on-next-patch feature should be > enabled unconditionally.
Using your collection of little tools idea, why not write a trivial script like:
grep "^Subject:" $1 checkpatch.pl $1
and use that as the command line for formail instead of adding unnecessary complexity to checkpatch?
| |