Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination - Sasha Levin

["Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:26:35AM -0400, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:46:51AM -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote:
> >    - Making checkpatch check for (some) of the stable kernel rules
> >    (and possibly recommend adding the stable@ tag in certain cases?).
> >      - Depends on: making checkpatch sane again.
> 
> This sounds interesting.  What do you mean by "sane"?  "sane" as in
> rewriting it so that someone who isn't a perl master can modify it?  Or
> "sane" as in "don't be so pedantic about things that don't matter"?

Both.

It actually came up during my talk: in theory we can enforce with checkpatch to produce proper stable@ tags with correct version/Fixes tagging to simplify our lives, but my claim was that the amount of actual people who use checkpatch is dropping due to the amount of warnings it spews that people just proceed to ignore.

The perl bit is also annoying, there's no way I can do what I suggested above myself.
 
> >    - Improving tagging for stable. The "version tag" option is broken
> >    and the "Fixes:" tag is always preferable, how do we get people to
> >    use that more often? (script it somehow?
> >    scripts/find-version-it-fixes ?).
> 
> Oh a script like that would be nice, but how would that work in reality?

The stable-deps script I have can find the commit dependencies you need to have to apply a give patch on top of that.

Since usually the broken fix is a dependency for the fix, we can figure out which commit we fix by looking at the dependency tree.

It's not going to be *perfect* (and since nothing is that's fine), but it could produce a very short list of possible options for a "Fixes:" tag.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha