linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] checkpatch: add a blacklist

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:	Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:44:11 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] checkpatch: add a blacklist

Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> writes:

>>>From my perspective Documentation/SubmittingPatches really dictates what
> you should be doing with checkpatch, since that was signed off on by
> Andy (on this thread) and Linus .. In that document I think checkpatch
> is given authority, rather than what your suggesting where it's just
> something you can use or not, and ignore or not like it has no meaning
> at all..

Checkpatch is a tool. How a tool can have authority? Code authors can
have authority. Maintainers can have authority. Linus as the "top"
maintainer can have authority. But a tool?

If checkpatch had any authority, the file in question (ext4.h) would
have to be "fixed" without questions and exceptions.

I don't say its warnings and errors have no meaning at all. It may be
very helpful at times, but still it's only a tool.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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/