Re: [PATCH v3 2/2 RESEND] checkpatch: warn on empty rust doc comments

[Patrick Miller]

On Monday, September 30th, 2024 at 6:34 AM, Hridesh MG <hridesh699@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 

> 

> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 8:11 AM Patrick Miller paddymills@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 

> > After the latest revision of my patch 1, I split the if statement so that
> > there is a parent check for rust files for future rust patch checks. So,
> > this would perfectly fit within that block.
> > 

> > Do you want me to add your code and credit you in my patch?
> 

> 

> Please disregard my prior email, I had failed to CC everyone. Since
> the change is small I'm okay with adding it as part of your patch,
> please do add the Co-developed-by tag, thanks!
> 

> However, I was curious how conflicts like these are generally
> resolved. For example, if there are two large patchsets which conflict
> with each other, how does one ensure that they are compatible, and
> even if they are, how do the maintainers ensure that they are applied
> in the correct order?

2 changes that I am making to your patch as I merge it with mine (I tested these)
  - Added a @fix option. I ran into this with my patch and was requested to
      add it by a checkpatch maintainer
  - Revised your $prevrawline regex to check against existing blank lines as
      well as added blank lines (made the leading + optional). Otherwise I
      think the checkpatch would not match against a blank doc comment line
      added after an existing blank doc line.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature