linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:44:47 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
> > reported to you earlier:
> > 
> >   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> >   #2319:
> >   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> 
> That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities 
> which I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.
> 
> But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and from 
> patches which later alter that code.  A bit.

well, the two variants is:

	max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;

	max_load = 0;
	this_load = 0;
	total_load = 0;
	total_pwr = 0;

and the first one is more readable and more compact. (as long as the 
conceptual 'type' of the variables is the same - which it is in this 
case.)

anyway, this is something where reasonable people might disagree, and a 
tool should not force it one way or another. And this is the second time 
i raised this very example and Andy ignored my feedback and failed to 
notice the structural problem behind it (that a tool should only warn by 
default if it is _sure_ that there is a problem - otherwise the tool 
cannot be used for effective [i.e. automated] quality control), so i'm 
raising this point again, in a slightly more irritated tone ;-)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/