Re: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend table allocator for multiple sizes

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:30:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:34 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:56:40AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> > > > WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'Peter
> > > > Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>'
> > > > (in all patches)
> > > >
> > > > I can fix that (the From?) up while applying.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure where that warning comes from, but if you feel it needs
> > > fixing, sure. I normally only add the (Intel) thing to the SoB. I've so
> > > far never had complaints about that.
> > 
> > Checkpatch doesn't like this.
> 
> Ooh, I see, that's a relatively new warning, pretty daft if you ask me.
> 
> Now I have to rediscover how I went about teaching checkpatch to STFU ;-)
> 
> Joe, should that '$email eq $author' not ignore rfc822 comments? That

Argh, that's me hitting on the wrong 'nominal' in checkpatch.pl, same
difference though.

> is:
> 
> 	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> and:
> 
> 	Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> are, in actual fact, the same.