linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) in function declarations

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:	Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:17:07 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>, apw@...onical.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch.pl: thou shalt not use () or (...) in function declarations

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:55:38 +0100, Jiri Slaby said:
> On 03/22/2012 05:49 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > Is there any *legitimate* use of an empty parameter list in the
> > kernel tree?
>
> Yeah, a ton of them. There are many drivers which work with a global
> singleton. So they need no argument.

Those can be 'int foo(void)' can't they?  The other historical usage is for
'int foo()' to denote an old K&R-style varargs list, which is like disco - a
bad idea from long agon that's never coming back. ;)

Of course, if we add this to checkpatch, we'll have a flood of fixup patches.
Maybe we just need to say "3.5 will be the int foo() housecleaning release" and
be done with it?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped