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 18:15:09 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
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


* Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2/15/2009 7:47 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:04:36AM +0530, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> > > >> Hi Ingo,
> > > >> 
> > > >> I used your code-quality script to do cleanup in kernel/kallsyms.c.
> > > >> Below patch removes errors generated by checkpatch.pl.
> > > > When doing so use checkpatch only as a hint generator and do
> > > > not concentrate only on the warnings/errors generated by checkpatch.
> > > > 
> > > > Your patch is an improvement but please fix the remaining issues.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, the changelog is bad (non-exiting in fact).
> > > 
> > > The fact that the issues where discovered using checkpatch is absolutely
> > > uninteresting.  The changelog should describe /what/ is fixed, e.g.
> > > whitespace, maybe other things.  (In case of nontrivial changes the log
> > > may also need to explain not only the /what but also the /how/, but this
> > > does not apply to patches like this one.)
> > 
> > The commit log definitely needs enhancements but it's not uninteresting 
> > at all what tools were used to arrive to a change. It shouldnt be in the 
> > title, but can be mentioned in the changelog itself. (and should be 
> > mentioned if the cleanup ever gets as far as the mainline kernel - if a 
> > good and acceptable commit results out of a tool's usage then that tool 
> > needs to be advertised some more.)
> 
> Is everything below the --- preserved in what is available via git log?  

No, it's lost, so the whole suggestion of putting the method of how a 
patch was motivated into the discarded section is incredibly silly. It 
should not shout in the title but is well placed somewhere in the 
changelog.

	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/