Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: improve error message for p1-check

[David Rientjes]

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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/