linux-kernel - Re: Checkpatch false positive?

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:	Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:18:04 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Matthew Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Checkpatch false positive?

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 09:51:02PM -0700, Matthew Helsley wrote:
> Hello checkpatch.pl maintainers,
> 
> 	I'm adding a new thread flag and I get this apparent checkpatch false
> positive:
> 
> 
> ERROR: do not modify files in include/asm, change architecture specific files in include/asm-<architecture>
> #36: +++ linux-2.6.27-rc1-mm1/arch/sparc/include/asm/thread_info_32.h
> 
> ERROR: do not modify files in include/asm, change architecture specific files in include/asm-<architecture>
> #63: +++ linux-2.6.27-rc1-mm1/arch/sparc/include/asm/thread_info_64.h
> 
> ERROR: do not modify files in include/asm, change architecture specific files in include/asm-<architecture>
> #289: +++ linux-2.6.27-rc1-mm1/arch/parisc/include/asm/thread_info.h
> 
> patches/0001-Container-Freezer-Add-TIF_FREEZE-flag-to-all-archit.patch total: 3 errors, 0 warnings, 214 lines checked
> 
> patches/0001-Container-Freezer-Add-TIF_FREEZE-flag-to-all-archit.patch has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
> are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> 
> 
> 	Which happens for every arch where the file has been moved under the
> arch/ directory (sparc and parisc so far). Should this check for
> arch/<foo>/include/asm before giving an ERROR? Should
> arch/<foo>/include/asm only trigger a WARNING in this case?
> 
> Cheers,
> 	-Matt Helsley

Yes, that check isn't very well anchored.  I've tightened that up in the
latest version.  Could you check your patch with the latest testing
version for me:

    http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-testing

-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/