Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Allow not using -f with files that are in git

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 20:15 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Joe,

rehi Geert

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:07 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 16:03 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
[]
> > > This is now commit f5f613259f3fea81 ("checkpatch: allow not using -f
> > > with files that are in git"), causing:
> > > 
> > >     Global symbol "$gitroot" requires explicit package name (did you
> > > forget to declare "my $gitroot"?) at scripts/checkpatch.pl line 980.
> > >     Execution of scripts/checkpatch.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
[]
> > I believe there is a dependency on another patch
> > in -next that wasn't pushed to Linus' tree.
> > 
> > commit 5ec1f7de97b26a3fa364bbb31fdd2e42c8e6fa22
> > Author: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Thu Oct 8 11:53:44 2020 +1100
> > 
> >     checkpatch: test $GIT_DIR changes
> > 
> > So it'd be better to revert right now until
> > this other patch is accepted or pushed.
> 
> Thanks, after cherry-picking that one from next, checkpatch works again.
> However, there are some issues with that commit:
>   1. ERROR: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'Joe
> Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>',
>   2. The Link: is bogus, and gives 404.

I generally create patches against -next.

The above commit was a test patch for Andrew who
had some inconvenience because he doesn't generally
use git or has a git repo in some non-standard path.

I believe it works well enough to be OK, but I
didn't test it and don't have the same setup.

I'll post it again as a reply to this email with a
with a sign-off and a better commit description and
Linus/Andrew can decide if it's better to revert
f5f613259f3f or apply it separately.