| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:15:23 -0400 From: Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, roel <12o3l@...cali.nl>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:06:09 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote: > > The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did > > attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then > > using the git blame engine to attribute each "failure" to a particular > > commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer > > about violations there-in. Wouldn't it be easier to pass each commit through checkpatch and email the committer if there is a problem? Each commit can be viewed as a standalone patch afterall; what does blame add? > The question is, whether we can convince the git developers to integrate > it. When a commit happens and checkpatch.pl is in scripts/, then run the > patch through it before doing the actual commit. Definitely the way to go. I'm pretty sure the Git guys would agree to distribute checkpatch.pl along with the existing pre-commit hook. So at least enabling checkpatch would be trivial for those convinced to use it. Sean - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists