linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: don't fake typedefs with #define

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, 22 May 2012 19:02:00 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
Cc:	Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: don't fake typedefs with #define

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 11:54 +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 18/05/12 07:16, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Too many. Alas I can't share them. 
> That sounds like the cases you have seen are in code which is not
> public. I don't think I have ever seen code in the kernel, or in
> proposed patches which fakes a typedef with a #define.
> 
> Is this an issue for public code, or for a private company tree? In the
> latter case, the checkpatch addition should go in your private tree,
> rather than mainline. It looks like, at least for mainline Linux, you
> are trying to solve a non-existent problem.

I agree it's pretty rare.

$ git grep -E "#\s*define\s+\w+\s+(struct|union)\b"|wc -l
57

Perhaps rarity shouldn't be enough to exclude the test though.

If Andy or Andrew wants to take it though, it's not a big
maintenance burden.

--
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/