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: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:33:01 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: update checkpatch.pl to version 0.19 On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 10:34:36AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:02:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:30:37 -0700 Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 07:22:25PM +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: > > > > @@ -1920,23 +2004,16 @@ sub process { > > > > WARN("kfree(NULL) is safe this check is probabally not required\n" . $hereprev); > > > > } > > > > } > > > > -# check for needless usb_free_urb() checks > > > > - if ($prevline =~ /\bif\s*\(([^\)]*)\)/) { > > > > - my $expr = $1; > > > > - if ($line =~ /\busb_free_urb\(\Q$expr\E\);/) { > > > > - WARN("usb_free_urb(NULL) is safe this check is probabally not required\n" . $hereprev); > > > > - } > > > > - } > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious as to why this check was removed. Any specific reason? It > > > was valid from what I can tell. > > > > Because of the spelling? > > > > If so, let's be consistent: > > > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl~a > > +++ a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > @@ -1997,14 +1997,6 @@ sub process { > > $herecurr); > > } > > > > -# check for needless kfree() checks > > - if ($prevline =~ /\bif\s*\(([^\)]*)\)/) { > > - my $expr = $1; > > - if ($line =~ /\bkfree\(\Q$expr\E\);/) { > > - WARN("kfree(NULL) is safe this check is probabally not required\n" . $hereprev); > > - } > > - } > > - > > That's the proverbial baby with the bathwater problem here, we can fix > spelling mistakes pretty easily :) > > I'd prefer the original check to be put back, and the kfree(NULL) check > to remain as well, as it too is valid. > > But I would like to find out first from Andy why this was removed. Odds > are he wasn't keeping up with the changes upstream from his local copy, > which also might have caused other things to be removed over time :( That look to be my fault. Lost something that got merged by some other route. I really need a workable solution to the tests problem so I can work with real per change deltas. I do try and check things are not removed erroneously. Seems I did a poor job on that one tho. The delta was pretty heafty as I remember, so I missed it. The issue I have is I have a comprehensive test suite which is kept in lock step with checkpatch itself, all in my own tree. Now that is just noise for mainline. What I want to be able to do is keep that in lock step with developments in my tree, but not merge it upstream. So far I've not found a workable solution with git for that. Anyhow I will sort out where that check has gone and reinstate it. Perhaps for the next release I will move to pushing Andrew as a set of patches, not a delta that would stop this occuring again. -apw -- 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