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:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:19:54 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	apw@...onical.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Checkpatch false positive?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:49:05 +0100
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:

>   Hi,
> 
>   I've used checkpatch.pl to verify one of my patches. It complains:
> 
> ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line
> #167: FILE: fs/quota/quota_tree.c:249:
> +       for (i = 0, ddquot = buf + sizeof(struct qt_disk_dqdbheader);
> [...]
>              i++, ddquot += info->dqi_entry_size);
> 
>   But the code looks like:
>         for (i = 0, ddquot = buf + sizeof(struct qt_disk_dqdbheader);
>              i < qtree_dqstr_in_blk(info)
> && !qtree_entry_unused(info, ddquot); i++, ddquot +=
> info->dqi_entry_size);
> 

while tihs might be correct C... don't you think it would be much
better to actually have a statement here rather than cramming
everything into the for ?
--
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/