linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c

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:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:11:15 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in
	kernel/kallsyms.c


* Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:50:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, 
> > > > ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug 
> > > > or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to
> > > > mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already 
> > > > got merged. I dont understand your point.
> > > 
> > > I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what
> > > the effect of the patch is and describe this".
> > 
> > Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be 
> > mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable.
> 
> Hell, yes.  I'm sick and tired of "$DRIVER: fix sparse warnings 
> <something far off-screen when looking at it in mutt on xterm>" kind 
> of subjects, while we are at it.  Mention the tool when that adds 
> information useful for understanding commit message and patch; 
> otherwise you are just adding noise.

No argument that it's not high value enough information to be in the 
title itself. That's why i clearly said it in my first mail:

  "It shouldnt be in the title,"

Stefan Richter's argument was different though, he argued that the 
information should not be in the changelog at all, in any place. That 
was and is my point.

	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/