On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 08:15:01AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 06:37:43PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 07:23:28PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 06:15:02PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > > > The checkpatch.pl in v5.10.y still triggers lots of false positives for > > > > REPEATED_WORD warnings, particularly for commit logs. Can we please > > > > backport these two fixes? > > > > > > Why is older versions of checkpatch being used? Why not always use the > > > latest version, much like perf is handled? > > > > > > No new code should be written against older kernels, so who is using > > > this old tool? > > > > This is a minor annoyance when working directly with the v5.10 stable > > tree and doing e.g ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -g HEAD. I suppose it makes > > sense to always prefer the top-of-tree scripts. However, this could be > > inconvenient for some scenarios were master needs to be pulled > > separately. > > It makes more sense to use the newer version of the tool, especially as > you are probably having it review backports of newer patches, which > obviously, should follow the newer checkpatch settings, not the older > ones :) Yes, that is the use-case we have. We'll switch to the latest version so please ignore these patches then. Sorry for the noise. -- Carlos Llamas
