Re: Fw: [PATCH 0/2] feat: checkpatch: prohibit Buglink: and warn about missing Link:

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 13:14 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Apparently MAINTAINERS is hard to read.  Please review?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Date: Sun,  4 Dec 2022 12:33:37 +0100
> From: Kai Wasserbäch <kai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH 0/2] feat: checkpatch: prohibit Buglink: and warn about missing Link:
> 
> 
> Hey,
> Thorsten Leemhuis suggested the following two changes to checkpatch, which
> I hereby humbly submit for review. Please let me know if any changes
> would be required for acceptance.
> 
> NOTES:
> - checkpatch is rather long, so I might have chosen the wrong section to
>   add these two checks. Any better placement suggestion is welcome.
> - checkpatch implements custum versions of Perl core modules, that might
>   be an future area for clean-ups? Eg. right off the bat there is a
>   `uniq` implementation. List::Util (core module since 5.8.0 (5.7.3 to
>   be pedantic)) has a far better performing version in XS.

Maybe.  I don't know there are that many generic functions
that could be used.  You are welcome find some.

> 
> Cheers,
> Kai
> 
> Suggested-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kai Wasserbäch <kai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Kai Wasserbäch (2):
>   feat: checkpatch: error on usage of a Buglink tag in the commit log

Why, what's wrong with a buglink reference?

>   feat: checkpatch: Warn about Reported-by: not being followed by a
>     Link:

I think this is unnecessary.