Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [RFC PATCH 2/3] MAINTAINERS, Handbook: Subsystem Profile

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 14:44 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > I quickly cooked up this script to produce the top-5 commit prefixes for
> > the given files over the arbitrary last 200 commits. It'll give you a
> > pretty good idea if you're even close.
> >
> > ---
> > #!/bin/sh
> > # usage: subject-prefix FILE [...]
> > # show top 5 subject prefixes for FILEs
> >
> > git log --format=%s -n 200 -- "$@" |\
> >       grep -v "^Merge " |\

--no-merges in git log can replace this line.

> >       sed 's/\(.*\):.*/\1/' |\
> >       sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | sed 's/ *[0-9]\+ //' |\
> >       head -n 5
> > ---
> >
> > Someone who knows perl could turn that into a checkpatch check: See if
> > the patch subject prefix is one of the top-5 for all files changed by
> > the patch, and ask the user to double check if it isn't. Or some
> > heuristics thereof.
>
> This won't work when a patch contains multiple files
> from different paths, or even multiple files from a
> single driver.

Different paths is often, but not always a sign that patches may need
to be split up. Maybe that is something checkpatch should point out.

> Perhaps it's better to use a generic mechanism like
>
>         basename $(dirname $filename):
>
> with some exceptions and add an override patch subject
> grammar to appropriate various sections of MAINTAINERS.

Perhaps just use the script as a starting point to populate
MAINTAINERS as it may never be that accurate.

> I also think it's better to use a separate script like
> scripts/spdxcheck.py and tie any necessary checkpatch
> use to that script.

Yes, checkpatch is getting pretty unwieldy.

Rob