[Patchew-devel] [Qemu-devel] Failure to submit patches, two questions - what should I do?

[Laurent Vivier]

On 27/05/2019 10:13, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 26/05/2019 10.09, Lucien Anti-Spam via Qemu-devel wrote:
>>   
>>
>>     > On Sunday, May 26, 2019, 4:45:26 PM GMT+9, <no-reply at patchew.org> wrote: > Subject; [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Incorrect Stack Pointer shadow register support on some m68k CPUs > .....> snip> .....> === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
>>>   ERROR: Author email address is mangled by the mailing list
>>>   #2:
>>>   Author: Lucien Murray-Pitts via Qemu-devel <qemu-devel at nongnu.org>
>>>   
>>>   WARNING: Block comments use a leading /* on a separate line
>>>   #46: FILE: target/m68k/cpu.h:465:
>>>   +/* The ColdFire core ISA is a RISC-style reduction of the 68000 series
>>>   
>>>   WARNING: Block comments use * on subsequent lines
>>>   #47: FILE: target/m68k/cpu.h:466:>
>>>   +/* The ColdFire core ISA is a RISC-style reduction of the 68000 series
>>> +  Whilst the 68000 flourished by adding extended stack/instructions in>.........> snip
>> Q1:  Name mangling seems to be a bug, whats going on - how should I be submiting now?        ( perl script didnt catch it AND there seems to already be a patch from half year or more ago .. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10662525/ )  whats the correct action here?
> 
> It's a problem with your mail provider (yahoo.com), you personally can't
> do anything about this (except complaining to your provider or to switch
> to another one). See this URL for some details:
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05625.html
> 
> Unless you are bothered and want to switch your provider, you can ignore
> the warning here, it's rather a note to the maintainer that they've got
> to adjust the "author" of the patch manually when they pick up the patch.
> 
>> Q2:  I am getting a WARNING but I believe it is an exception in this case.        yes I know it breaks the coding style BUT this coding style was already there for these comments.        Should I submit this patch with a move to the RIGHT coding style? or will this patch be accepted as the code is older style?
> 
> It's up to the maintainer of the subsystem (Laurent?) - IMHO it's ok to
> ask for an exception in this case, but a separate clean-up patch is
> certainly also welcome.

In this case I thought it was just a missing carriage-return on the 
first line, but in fact we have a missing '*' on every line, so, yes, I 
agree it can stay as-is and a separate clean-up patch can be sent later.

Thanks,
Laurent