From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86413204598 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2025 07:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753515287; cv=none; b=uc7/sSh0XiPu5VJR2ayKcFm/o4wE8OMjnEZqYK3MX/iNZZp8Tb6VKiqClQjacxrs4GALHLDQvgCz3hOnvtW4+7gXYigTKgUHYq59HzPWeurvB5ljkv8egPYOw+MqwfKa2XY57MTzhPYJ8e6mrAZ5gYaUl3dkJMal3MfpYkfSU1w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753515287; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FMNmStjOUWVtt7cOwV8Qlv+tumSg3tiV3l++SO5dGx4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nTJSoZJIPBfMVLhbceo/bjC1bsVqfCzHyosIjeaerzLmTdOcX+uLu9+iwBVqzUoN53wdKV6vnQAWr3kQC9P25SQ8+kYCEYTXWu32lcBkx/Hu6wzuFryAhGRU65tJj7DGfe2XZzTA3Raa9fBf68HlItvdk0/mOyLlYWaYMochayc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=hammernet.be; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=hammernet.be; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hammernet-be.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@hammernet-be.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=khI36g8W; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=hammernet.be Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=hammernet.be Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hammernet-be.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@hammernet-be.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="khI36g8W" Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a522224582so1367751f8f.3 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:34:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hammernet-be.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1753515283; x=1754120083; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FMNmStjOUWVtt7cOwV8Qlv+tumSg3tiV3l++SO5dGx4=; b=khI36g8WBD5L5T58SbErP3gsvmWIvDAjpf/72tHfCOG+ZWf8GUkTHOIxZ/yP1k9mg4 1bG9x1mQOcsv6SKbEVWOn2dt71k3a5+Aax43Wts+R73VAviGHQ7SXLF1h6gqwa8VfBvJ V4OpcUUxMQ/o6ZhN3FeZWix7X9LJ7nxL6mrBVZ48OhCWwS1f89ZCV0raWbW53QbwEWUX Bg+wxxlFMdZyczs8JFXFR8Y0gm2I7JVhM/fe3866H4qC7Cst6jGqSQg52I4PIt5P6XOK XnznRJfbtV30s6EjYxnx0v16twlEvT9tGgGrkvAL+rUnBeFrPkopntpaUuGuWlTsj/Sp Ea4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753515283; x=1754120083; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FMNmStjOUWVtt7cOwV8Qlv+tumSg3tiV3l++SO5dGx4=; b=KhUsbCpAQc8bGzZfXl0+qiYMXbll63nvf+TJ9Ov0ALMuXGRZODxSPAuzAdAn/4FwSJ Z8OO8ENBhq09jslQawehAClcMVivRPZ+hxz5QsDLcviu4Ui9PD2qeDcnweJm6/C//0B9 MZS1lIdrcLGSvQ4EelnEruA+0vjS/kNxbikS0NuDUgv8+Dir+6vzJBXNUF8ekJzkcoG8 jy6uB6MYrUWsNNlKNo8Sdo6ZE2B4fPoeB15BjuE8ljJh0s5XQT/6J6UNXjBkhLpSEeiO 9nWCGQPGDxqP1sMaht7VbieMLXjWV35hJCXFWf6jzeUNK60itYymCYGpzn6rAYOv33as p84w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXPO+zWjY2aBTAhmr6b04bxBndTFIA8o/XVL1M+phFAmLJYu3pwmKZeRRJqvlmNL6x3byjvEZkyqvI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzx1ZS9s3nAg1r+Cq0/em36vwBp5Cebs1J0Xi4h4vMAZjrbJGvE /nW522CuCAypx41VWiKYFUyTI2txS+BlO6EkscAgVirrqnEEOen84wb7pkKm3XzT06k= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs992Z4eFePQvrElOX93GejzCa9EsXs4cpdnFZS/Q6O7C1ab9OF1o5qA7mSFl4 bqXj7SjFrmradfNevmYOZRLbflC+pNd44kcS9kuaZ2+dzwda8YXKW6eCxajkjfhKF/Bc3Zo0kD1 OQKpT2d47k4pftIOa+6uX07bhMEIohaPuhS44b0IDhSBcCEyc/slEh6HZtQ9Jk0zZqTxuoL80m3 oIUw4GD8CEvGt07e+aXC4OfwChlUovVDbJH4YpHloLT6gWG8nhwuPYlbx9Okn1ERyzTnLVj10Yy aIGLZcBIa1RLTaLlz9Sjwg2M4qBD3IuMne5kBjx/R39jhiqP5KfIqSgwn24xTAmuqz9B8KDI/kb xwHajsrYhq/2E4wvVOpg+LNLKACwJUPe33xZJ1XPjA6j0ImfjKbthPro5SfUn8j1mo4n8Kilz4K Ga+u58pO8mb38A5qIlcjkj X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGS1R1BLd51LhebYLPR71ELpRpxxT4MPtlRkigqh7295cnHvdHNyjtNpQNmAZYcVC1/uPyNUw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:588e:0:b0:3a4:d9fa:f1ed with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3b776728f9dmr3020420f8f.13.1753515283332; Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:1807:2a00:3400:aad:4a11:7705:31c4? ([2a02:1807:2a00:3400:aad:4a11:7705:31c4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-3b778f1e760sm1991506f8f.69.2025.07.26.00.34.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 09:34:41 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: validate commit tag ordering To: dwaipayanray1@gmail.com, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, joe@perches.com, corbet@lwn.net, apw@canonical.com Cc: skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff.johnson@oss.qualcomm.com, akiyks@gmail.com, konstantin@linuxfoundation.org, krzk@kernel.org References: <20250724072032.118554-1-hendrik.hamerlinck@hammernet.be> Content-Language: en-US From: Hendrik Hamerlinck In-Reply-To: <20250724072032.118554-1-hendrik.hamerlinck@hammernet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 7/24/25 09:20, Hendrik Hamerlinck wrote: > Modified the checkpatch script to ensure that commit tags (e.g., > Signed-off-by, Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, etc.) appear in the > correct order according to kernel conventions [1]. Hello all, Thank you for the feedback. I wasn’t aware that the tag ordering conventions used in the TIP tree are not universally followed across all kernel subsystems. My motivation for this change came from a recent mistake I made in a patch submission, where I incorrectly placed a Fixes: tag after the Signed-off-by: line. I realized that checkpatch.pl didn’t flag this, and I thought a warning might be helpful, especially for newer contributors like myself. I now realize that my approach is too strict by trying to enforce an order for all tags. However, I still believe that a targeted warning could be useful. Another mentee I work with recently made the same mistake, so it may be a common pitfall. Is there a general consensus on placing the first Fixes: tag at the start of the tag sequence? If so, a warning might be helpful for newer contributors? I was still using checkpatch as that was how I initially learned it. I'll definitely look into using b4 as well. Kind regards, Hendrik