On 2019-11-07 20:35:03 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:10:41PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2019-11-04 11:27:32 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > > > It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line.
> > > > > I get no errors with the following:
> > > >
> > > > That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other
> > > > people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the
> > > > word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes it reads better. What about the following?
> > >
> > > Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking
> > > operation"), but never actually used it.
> > >
> > > And then add the Fixes: line above the Cc: and Signed-off-by: ?
> >
> > Can please get over with? It is a simple patch. It has simple
> > description.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20191028202419.GA7214@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I'm also cool with cc stable as long as the commit is message has the
> correct format.
This is _really_ getting ridiculous. Holding back a simple patch just
because checkpatch says that the word `commit' is not in a new line. It
is more readable that way not to mention line with the commit id is
getting really long. This is a stupid checkpatch rule which is enforced
here.
> /Jarkko
Sebastian
