Re: checkpatch complains about Reported-by block (was: [PATCH v3] tpm: Enable hwrng only for Pluton on AMD CPUs)

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Thu Aug 24, 2023 at 7:43 AM EEST, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 21:24 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > [Cc: +Andy, +Joe]
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Jarkko, dear Andy, dear Joe,
> > 
> > 
> > Am 23.08.23 um 19:40 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
> > > On Wed Aug 23, 2023 at 11:23 AM EEST, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > 
> > > > Am 23.08.23 um 01:15 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
> > > > > The vendor check introduced by commit 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for
> > > > > all AMD fTPMs") doesn't work properly on a number of Intel fTPMs.  On the
> > > > > reported systems the TPM doesn't reply at bootup and returns back the
> > > > > command code. This makes the TPM fail probe.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since only Microsoft Pluton is the only known combination of AMD CPU and
> > > > > fTPM from other vendor, disable hwrng otherwise. In order to make sysadmin
> > > > > aware of this, print also info message to the klog.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Fixes: 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs")
> > > > > Reported-by: Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217804
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Mario’s patch also had the three reporters below listed:
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> > > > Reported-by: Ronan Pigott <ronan@xxxxxx>
> > > > Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo <rjgolo@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > The problem here is that checkpatch throws three warnings:
> > > 
> > > WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
> > > #19:
> > > Reported-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> > > Reported-by: Ronan Pigott <ronan@xxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
> > > #20:
> > > Reported-by: Ronan Pigott <ronan@xxxxxx>
> > > Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo <rjgolo@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
> > > #21:
> > > Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo <rjgolo@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Since bugzilla is not part of the documented process afaik, I used this
> > > field as the guideline:
> > > 
> > > Reported:	2023-08-17 20:59 UTC by Todd Brandt
> > > 
> > > How otherwise I should interpret kernel bugzilla?
> > 
> > How is the proper process to add more than one reporter (so they are 
> > noted and also added to CC), so that checkpatch.pl does not complain?
> > 
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > > In any case new version is still needed as the commit message must
> > > contain a mention of "Lenovo Legion Y540" as the stimulus for doing
> > > this code change in the first place.
> > > 
> > > BR, Jarkko
>
> Well, if it's really desired to allow multiple consecutive reported-by:
> lines, maybe:
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 528f619520eb9..5b5c11ad04087 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -3179,6 +3179,8 @@ sub process {
>  				if (!defined $lines[$linenr]) {
>  					WARN("BAD_REPORTED_BY_LINK",
>  					     "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report\n" . $herecurr . "\n");
> +				} elsif ($rawlines[$linenr] =~ /^\s*reported(?:|-and-tested)-by:/i) {
> +					;
>  				} elsif ($rawlines[$linenr] !~ /^closes:\s*/i) {
>  					WARN("BAD_REPORTED_BY_LINK",
>  					     "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report\n" . $herecurr . $rawlines[$linenr] . "\n");

Kind of opposing this because:

1. Bugzilla has a reporter field.
2. The request is now, if I understood this correctly, to add
   reported-by field to all people who have left a comment.
3. There is a field for the reporter, which points out to a single
   person. Why all the possible commenters and not the creator
   of the report?

BR, Jarkko